This is my first visit to this institution; I am fortunate to have found it. I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for any parliamentary solecisms that I may commit this morning, but I am not used to the Chamber's procedures. I assume that they are the same as on the Floor of the House.

The matter before us today is the Government's counter-fraud strategy. The Public Accounts Committee has made a number of reports on the subject, but I do not wish to speak about them. Many of the questions that I want to raise today are relatively new and have not yet been debated by the Public Accounts Committee. Some of them cover elements of policy, on which the Committee conventionally does not comment. I am not speaking on behalf of the Conservative party; what I have to say today will be said entirely as an ordinary Member of Parliament.

I shall put the subject in context by considering the level of fraud. First, it is almost impossible accurately to measure social security fraud. If we knew where all the missing money was going, we would, at least in theory, be able to get it back; we would not then have a problem. Every estimate made of fraud is just that—an estimate. I believe that it is often an underestimate. Social security fraud is estimated to be between £3 billion and £7 billion. Departmental estimates allocate sums to individual categories of fraud, which add up to as much as £2.5 billion. The primary figures within that estimate are as follows. Income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance fraud costs about £1,530 million. The jobseeker's allowance fraud costs about £47 million; child benefit costs £184 million; instrument of payment fraud costs £119 million, and housing benefit fraud costs £600 million. Hon. Members may have noticed that I did not include disability living allowance fraud, but that is because I believe that the Department has lost confidence in its figures. It does not mean that there is no fraud, it is simply an underestimate. More accurately, the total is between £3 billion and £7 billion. During the past two years, the Prime Minister has spoken of a total of £5 billion.

No one can imagine such sums. Billions of pounds is a meaningless phrase, but here it is equivalent to between £300 and £500 per family per year. That money is ripped off, stolen, by fraudsters. It is equivalent to between £100 and £300 per taxpayer per year. More important, it is a massive loss to the public accounts. I am that peculiar person—a right-wing Conservative who believes in high levels of public service delivery—and I see it differently. The minimum estimate of £2.5 billion would pay for 100 district hospitals a year, or for 5,000 teachers, nurses, policemen and firemen, who are sorely needed. The £5 billion estimate of the Prime Minister would pay for both. The highest estimate would pay for both and leave money over to make massive improvements in all our public services. It is enormously important.

The next question is: in what direction are we going? The Government obviously take the matter seriously, as did the previous Government, but how effective is their strategy? To be fair to the Government, it is too early to judge. The problem with social security and Benefits Agency accounts is that they are published fairly late; we have only just received the two sets of accounts for the first two years of the Government's tenure, which show little sign of improvement.

We must be wary of some of the figures; as I said earlier, they are estimates and bigger changes in the apparent fraud figures result from changes in estimating procedure than from changes of policy. To say that there is no apparent change is to say that there is no change in the estimate, not in the outcome. The numbers as published do not show a material improvement.

A better indicator from the point of view of the House is to consider the number of errors, which are more accurately assessed by the National Audit Office. Errors are important because the drivers that lead to an increase in errors in social security—weaknesses in control systems, poor administration, high levels of complexity and so on—lead to fraud. The estimate of error in income support and jobseeker's allowance rose by £80 million to £637 million in 1998–99.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will be considering in more detail the administration of local government expenditure. The Audit Commission's figures show significant increases in some areas of local government-related housing fraud, which led to contention in recent evidence to the Public Accounts Committee. There is no reason to be complacent; the issue is massively important and, at present, there is no sign that we have got a grip on it. It is not that the Government do not take it seriously, or that they are not trying to do something about it, but we have not yet made a bite into it.

To assess the problem properly, we must consider what it consists of. It is easy to talk about billions of pounds; it is also easy to pick off individual cases, such as the ram raider who made £46,000 in addition to millions of pounds of criminal income out of the disability living allowance, despite the fact that he was a scuba diver, skier and private pilot with a variety of other interesting physical pursuits. What is important is to focus on how such fraud comes about.

The most serious cause of fraud is the complexity of the regulations. More than 150 statutory instruments have been made under the social security banner in this Government's Administration. That does not tell us anything itself, but it is indicative of the complexity involved. The Benefits Agency admitted that, without simplification of the regulations for income support, about 10 per cent. of all payments will be wrong. That is a huge sum of money. It is not just fraud but poor administration that creates confusion and uncertainty for those most in need. It results in extra costs and high levels of debt, much of which is not collectable and thus makes fraud easier to execute and the perpetrators much harder to catch after the event.

The award of housing benefit is beset with problems of the same complexity as the regulations, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead will explain later. I shall deal with complexity in the working families tax credit, which will come into effect this year.

Technology is also a difficult matter. The Department has admitted the inadequacy of its computer systems, which is a key constraint on the detection of fraud. The matter will arise again and again in my speech. Insufficient capacity, poor programme design, lack of state-of-the-art processing procedures and the inability of systems to interact all contribute to the problems.

The Department tells us that it is making progress with data sharing and with the insulation of remote access terminals in local authorities. I hope that that is progressing, as it will assist in the fight against housing benefit fraud. Under the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997, data matching will be extended where possible to include information held by the Inland Revenue. That should assist in identifying working benefit claimants. I do not, however, hold my breath on the prospect of a Department of Social Security computer helping to solve the problem. The Department's past record with information technology has had all the elegance and effectiveness of a horse-drawn hang-glider, and I should not like to rely heavily on it. The Department is clearly making its best efforts and we hope that it succeeds, but I doubt whether the new system will solve the problem.

The Government have recognised the problem of benefits as passports. A claimant who has fraudulently or erroneously been awarded a benefit such as income support can use it as a passport for a range of other benefits, including housing benefit, council tax and relief from national health charges. Such activities create a ripple effect throughout the system that is funded by the public purse. Methods of payment also create problems. Paper-based systems of delivering social security benefits are not especially secure against smaller frauds. I hesitate to call those frauds amateur; non-organised fraud is perhaps a better expression. They are evidenced by the more than £100 million a year that is lost to the fraudulent encashment of order books and giro cheques.

The conventional wisdom is that automatic credit transfer will be much more secure. I am not entirely convinced by that view. I think that it is perfectly possible that automatic credit transfer will make organised fraud much bigger, once the system is penetrated. We have only to consider the West African gangs and others who work as cleaners in offices to gain access to security codes to wonder whether our bank security arrangements would stand up to such assault. I have some doubts about that. The proposals may deal with unorganised fraud, but they may also open up the risk of mega frauds, about which we must also concern ourselves.

The benefits system clearly offers opportunities to those intent on defrauding it and the lack of a stringent prosecution policy makes the risk of defrauding the system much more attractive. Ineffective recovery legislation and visibly poor debt management and recovery will add to that attraction. When the Public Accounts Committee considered housing benefit fraud in local government, it found that the risk of prosecution for identified and proven fraudsters was less than one in 100; fewer than one in 100 cases were pursued. The Government are addressing the issue, but to what extent? I have heard of improvements of between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. Okay, so the Minister is thinking of a one in 60 chance of prosecution, but that is not a deterrent.

Culture is another important issue. I am concerned about the culture in modern society, some of whose members see the system as a legitimate target. In some respects, it is easy to understand that attitude, as it feels less bad to steal from a big organisation than from the corner shop, and so on. It is, however, still stealing. At the end of the day, the victims are the people who do not receive the services about which I spoke at the beginning of my remarks, which could include schooling, proper welfare support or proper health treatment. The fact that the target is diffuse does not make such stealing any less immoral.

I shall comment briefly on types of fraud before I move on to the two main strategic issues that the Government face. I have mentioned the west African gangs, but they are not by any means the only ones. Fraud can take a variety of forms, the most obvious of which are multiple claims, hijacked identities, massive theft of instruments of payment and organised counterfeiting or alteration of documentation. Very serious amounts are involved, running into millions. That must be stamped out.

A rather more systemic problem is collusive fraud, involving, for example, landlords and tenants or employers and employees. Similarly, landlords can create bogus tenants and claim for them, or tenants can create fictitious addresses at which they purport to live.

Identity fraud is another category. Lack of security over national insurance numbers can lead to their being misused to make claims under several guises at different locations. Frauds involving forged or stolen birth certificates are not uncommon in relation to claims for family benefits. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead has made a major issue of that in the past and may want to comment today.

Fraud involving residency and attendance particularly affects claims for child benefit. Residency is a key qualifying condition for the benefit, as it is payable for at least 16 years, often by automatic credit transfer, and claimants or their children can leave the country and still receive benefit. Each year, £184 million or more in child benefit is lost. More than half of that is for children over 16 who are falsely claimed to be in further education.

Working while claiming is perhaps the best known kind of benefit fraud. It is one of the main kinds of fraud in regard to income support and jobseeker's allowance. Claiming as a single person while living with someone is a key component of the loss to public funds from income support and jobseeker's allowance fraud.

Fraudulent claims for disability benefits are also an issue. As I said earlier, the relevant figure was not included in the estimate of £2.5 billion, but the fraud is serious. The detail of some of the frauds that I am concerned about shows that they are carried out ruthlessly. They are an offence against all people who are properly entitled to disability living allowance.

The first of the general issues that I want to discuss is that benefits should be simpler to understand and administer. Complex cases cause confusion and error. They deny proper benefits to deserving cases and open the door to fraud. They are morally wrong on all counts. Dealing with that problem has become known in the parlance as designing fraud out of the system. I remember an exchange that I had with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead on that when he was a Minister. He took a measured and sensible approach.

The second issue is the design of effective anti-fraud mechanisms to catch and punish offenders. I propose to review the Government's reaction to the Scampion report as an example of that. I shall not discuss the third important issue, as I believe that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead will do so, but it relates to the standards of administration and co-operation in the system, particularly the introduction of targets and incentives to reduce error and fraud.

The best written example of what I am talking about is, I say immodestly, the Public Accounts Committee's report on housing benefit, to which the Government responded reasonably constructively. The aims that have been set out may reap benefits if the relevant design and execution is good. That deserves debate.

Working families tax credit, like its predecessor, family credit, is means tested. Critics of means testing argue with some force that such benefits are inherently susceptible to fraud. As working families tax credit has increased the eligible numbers, and as the awards are more generous—both direct policy intentions of the Government, with good reason—it is argued that the number of fraudulent claims will increase. From April 2000 onwards, employers will pay working familes tax credit and offset the amount paid against tax and national insurance liability. That has led some—the most eminent of whom is the right hon. Member for Birkenhead—to argue that employers and claimants may collude. Shortly after he ceased to be a Minister, which gave him a great deal of internal knowledge of the system, with his usual authority he said:

"But the whole of the working family tax credit is fraught with great dangers…It offers huge bonuses for dishonesty for both employers and workers…It strengthens the employers hold over people—`these are the conditions: cheat and both of us will be better off' … It thereby pulls employers into a spider's web of corruption … It rewards employers paying low wages."

That is a perceptive insight into what might happen if the system is allowed to get out of control.

In addition, we have the experience of the earned income tax credit in the United States, on which the working families tax credit is based. An article in Fiscal Studies based its criticism on a study by the Internal Revenue Service—the American Inland Revenue—that was released in early 1997. It found that taxpayers claimed $4.4 billion more in EITC funds than they were eligible to receive.

The counter-argument is that the United Kingdom proposals were developed to be aligned with the pre-existing in-work benefit system rather than the tax credit system in the United States. For example, eligibility for the EITC was originally checked retrospectively, in line with the policy on tax measures. The IRS now verifies eligibility before payment. Such a process is built into the UK proposals because they are based on existing structures for in-work benefits.

The Minister might say that we need not worry about the evidence on the EITB, but he would not be correct. The Social Security Committee examined the potential for fraud. Although it acknowledged the differences between the systems in the UK and the United States, it was concerned that the increased generosity of the tax credits could exacerbate existing problems of fraud in family credit and that the transfer of functions to the Inland Revenue would create new problems. In particular, the Social Security Committee criticised the decision of the Benefits Agency to abandon a full review of family credit to estimate the level of fraud.

The agency undertook a pilot study on the operation of family credit with the intention of generating a larger and statistically more significant study. The results of the pilot study showed that the Social Security Committee was right to be concerned. In its report that accompanied the pilot study, it said that of the 300 cases that were sampled, 20 were

"selected at random in 1997 from each of 15 centres from Dunfermline to Penzance, which were closely examined by trained investigators. Several of the cases had more than one 'outcome', resulting in 326 'outcomes' from the 298 cases actually examined. The raw sample results showed that there were only 141 `outcomes' in which no frauds or errors were found as a result of the visits, interviews and adjudication reviews."

Less than half of the family credits evaluated were free of fraud or error. It continued:

"Confirmed fraud was found in 32 'outcomes' and…suspicion of fraud in another 91 'outcomes'. It can be seen therefore that in a careful pilot study conducted of this very small sample, 123 out of 326 'outcomes' involved possible or actual fraud."

The results from the pilot study are too small to be extrapolated,

"so they could equally be an under-estimate as an over-estimate of the amount of fraud in the full Family Credit caseload",

in which more than 750,000 cases amounted to expenditure of £2.5 billion in that year.

The Social Security Committee went on to list the problems that were raised by the examination of cases in the sample study. They were:

"failing to delcare capital above limits allowed… a child having left full-time education…incorrect declaration of own earnings…incorrect declaration of partner's earnings…living together as husband and wife…but claiming as a lone parent receiving other income."

It remained

"concerned that these indicative findings did not lead on to a full Review, which could have analysed the probable extent of each of these types of fraud."

I could not agree more with that conclusion.

As the working families tax credit is based on family credit, all the Committee's examples of ways in which claims had been identified as potentially false could apply under the new system. Claimants must still record details of the family's income and capital, the number of adults in the household, and the age and status of each child. False information about any of those variables could lead to an incorrect working family tax credit award.

I worry that, in introducing a new policy, with clear aims with which I do not disagree, such as creating an escape from the poverty trap, that survey was not carried further to enable us to design fraud out of the system. We know that the returns to individuals are much larger, and that more than a million additional individuals are eligible for the working family tax credit than were eligible under the previous system. Further, the mechanism is operated by employers and not directly by benefits offices.

The result is a potentially problematic system—we do not know whether it will be because it has not yet been implemented—which could lead to serious increases in fraud, above and beyond those of which I have already spoken. As an indicator for hon. Members, I have picked out a newspaper article from late last year. It states:

"Fewer than one in 10 tax inspectors would be capable of correctly filling in the form that many of those claiming the working families' tax credit will have to complete, the profession's main umbrella group claimed yesterday. In a rare public attack on ministers, the Chartered Institute of Taxation—the leading body for tax experts, including inspectors—accused the government of breaking promises over consultation and repeating many of the errors that dogged the Child Support Agency."

That is possibly one of the most frightening things that I have ever heard about a prospective policy. I worry about the matter, and would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the way in which he will deal with what will be a serious matter during the many years for which the system will, no doubt, stay in place.

Secondly, I wish to deal with the assault on the fraudsters—the Government's approach to catching and dealing with them. I applied for the debate because of the Government's apparent treatment of the Scampion report, written by John Scampion, a social services commissioner. The inquiry was official, Government ordered and independent, but the report appears to have been shelved. I hope that the Minister will tell me that that is not true. The report came out on 24 January and we have heard little about it other than one thing to which I shall refer in a moment.

I can understand Ministers being uncomfortable with the comments in the report, and I shall give hon. Members about 10 quotations from the report so that they can understand why. First, it states:

"The fact is that BASIS (Benefits Agency Security Investigation Service) is not resourced to do all the work it is called upon to do".

Secondly, it states:

"There is insufficient flexibility in the total response to serious frauds".

Thirdly, it states:

"There is an unevenness of response to serious and organised fraud in different parts of the country".

Fourthly, it states:

"There are no strategic discussions between BFIS (Benefit Fraud Investigation Service) and BASIS. Their work is fragmented resulting in organised frauds not being pursued".

Fifthly, it states:

"One immediate issue is the provision of a basic hands-on information system dealing with actual or live frauds. Investigators both in BASIS and BFIS do seem handicapped by a reliance on exchanges of information derived manually".

Sixthly, it states:

"The amount of data that is held within the benefits system is immense. It is at present being garnered and assessed by a number of discrete organisations without a readily observable strategic framework".

The report went on to comment on some of the local organisational effects. It states:

"Each of the 400 or so [local] authorities is autonomous—lessons learnt by one may never be passed on to another … there is obviously no obvious route by which … practical use of good preventative intelligence may be disseminated more widely".

It also states:

"Equally there appears to be little intelligence interchange between local government and the BA.

WBS [Weekly Benefit Savings] stifles initiative, and creates a culture in which easy hits are encouraged to the detriment of professional investigative work".

It goes on:

"Against Housing Benefit fraud they [local authorities] are much less focused. Many authorities do not recognise it as a serious problem for them and others are not impelled by the financial regime or indeed enabled by the appropriate skills to actively pursue it as a matter of high priority".

Finally, it states:

"Organised fraud, especially the most serious is not a current priority of local government and in any revised system needs to become one. There is inconsistent and insufficiently co-ordinated practice on the use of intelligence to support the pursuit of organised fraud".

Those last half dozen quotes overlap with some of the Government's ideas, as the Minister will no doubt confirm later, but I thought that the first half dozen or so probably showed why the Government are uncomfortable with the report.

The thrust of the report's recommendations are aimed at consolidating fraud intelligence and investigation activities in a national structure, reporting to the Department of Social Security fraud strategy director rather than to Benefits Agency management. Such a co-ordinated approach to the fight against fraud should be seen as a welcome innovation, as under the current arrangements, potential frauds are often cross-referred between fragmented units of the Benefits Agency, with little or no action being taken due to conflicting priorities. That supports the recommendation that fraud intelligence should be removed from the Benefits Agency because that would permit national priorities to be set. Those are eminently sensible aims. To that purpose, the Scampion report's principle recommendations were as follows.

First, the report recommends the establishment of a single benefit investigation agency for Great Britain. The BIA would be created by merging the existing complement of BASIS with part of the existing complement of BFIS.

Secondly, the report recommends the establishment of a benefits intelligence directorate to bring together the intelligence work carried out within the Benefits Agency. The Secretary of State's response to that was to announce that a national intelligence unit was being created, but I understand that that is only a pilot body in the north west of England. It is difficult to see how the real benefits of a national intelligence unit will be achieved, or even tested, on a pilot basis in one part of the country. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

Thirdly, the report calls for the establishment of regional anti-fraud partnerships between local authorities, the BIA and the BID. The Minister's original response to the Public Accounts Committee report touched on only a fraction of those ideas.

Fourthly, partnerships would be required, within a given time scale, to submit proposals to the DSS for dealing with organised fraud. Again, it will be interesting to hear what those proposals are.

The report then lists several supplementary recommendations, which are sensible and practical, so I shall put them on the record because it would be interesting to know the Government's opinion on them. It suggests that details of payee, amount and personal identifier should be added in coded form to girocheques, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary. That seems to be a sensible idea. It suggests that a common baseline application form for council tax and housing benefit should be introduced. I know that some simplification of those forms is being undertaken, so perhaps the Minister will say something about that.

The report also recommends that a debate should be started on the balance between people's right to privacy and the state's need to protect public funds. Both this and the previous Government sidestepped that knotty issue. As something of a civil libertarian, I do not think the issue easy to resolve, but it is a great shame that the card system that the Government were to introduce crashed, and we were unable to have at least a voluntary smart card for benefits claimants. I would not force anyone to carry a card, but such a card would provide many honest people with a simpler, more straightforward mechanism for collecting their benefits, and it would have the added advantage of eradicating some fraud.

The report goes on:

"Investigation should be carried out into the possiblity of the DSS/BA joining the Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance Scheme."

That is a simple, sensible idea. After all, fraud is not confined to government or to welfare systems, and many private sector techniques, driven by englightened self-interest, may be of use in the public sector. The report also advocates

"a common prosecution policy between the Inland Revenue and DSS following the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit."

I suspect that it would be rather a shock to the DSS to have an Inland Revenue style prosecution policy, as the latter is not known for its leniency. The final recommendation is that

"Consideration should be given to the expansion of asset recovery and confiscation of crime proceeds."

That seems sensible, although I am not sure of the Government's view.

Finally, I shall pre-empt one argument that the Government might put forward. The matching of Scampion's recommendations for a benefit investigation agency and a benefits intelligence directorate with the existing role of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate is at issue. The Scampion report makes little reference to the work of the BFI, but I do not believe that its recommendations, if adopted, would result in a duplication of effort. The BFI was created to undertake inspections of social security benefit adminstration and counter-fraud activity, and to identify, encourage and promote good practice. The proposed benefit investigation agency would provide a single institution dedicated to investigating all forms of fraud against benefits administered by the Benefits Agency. The benefits intelligence directorate would have responsibility for supporting prevention and detection of fraud through the collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence across the Benefits Agency.

Although there is some scope for exchange of information between the BFI and the two proposed new bodies, the BFI's predominant focus is on local authorities, rather than on the Benefits Agency. Under these proposals, the three organisations would complement one another, rather than duplicate functions. I hope that the Government will not argue that there will be duplication.

I thought it a good thing that the Government initiated the Scampion inquiry. The outcome, uncomfortable as it may be, is a rather good report. I hope that the Department will show a willingness to take on board those issues. Some of the proposals involve quite serious reorganisation, with parts of the Department and agencies losing some of their empires to other parts. As an ex-Minister, I know how hard such battles can be fought in Whitehall.

I ask the Minister, for whose forthright and practical approach to these matters I have great respect, to take these recommendations on board and to try to ensure that the best parts of the Scampion report—that is, most of it—comes into being. This is a big issue; it frustrated the previous Government, and will frustrate the present Government and many in the future. Initiatives have not always worked. However, that is not a reason to give up trying or applying pressure, because the benefit of succeeding will be better public service throughout, which we should all support.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). Now that he has found this Chamber, I hope that debates examining the evolution of the Government's counter-fraud strategy will be a regular feature of the rest of the Parliament.

I begin by recording my thanks to the Chairman and members of the Public Accounts Committee for the information that they regularly provide to Parliament on the administration of public moneys, and to Sir John Bourn and his staff for the role that they play with the PAC in making that information available. For proof of their assistance, one would have only to consult tomorrow's Hansard to see how dependent we have all been in our contributions on the information that the Public Accounts committee has made available to the House of Commons and the wider public.

I join in the debate for the same reason as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and other hon. Members who wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—because it is not a simple debate about those who are in favour of people claiming benefits as opposed to others who are against people claiming benefit and try to focus all their attention on the question of fraud. The British attitudes survey revealed that the vast majority of the electorate think that a considerable number of people who are eligible to claim benefit are not doing so, and are concerned about that, while almost an equal number believe at the same time that in large parts of the system it is too easy to defraud taxpayers. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I not only believe in public services, but believe that unless one garners taxpayers' support by assuring them that their hard-earned money is not being squandered, wasted or fraudulently claimed, one allows attitudes to rock the very basis of the welfare state.

I welcome the fact that the Minister of State will respond to the debate, because in previous Parliaments he and I raised the issue of countering fraud. While it is, of course, good for people to change their views and join what is now the majority position—that countering fraud is a major issue—he is one of those who raised it when it was not fashionable and sought to strengthen the previous Government's counter-fraud strategy. The Minister may not always be supported by the Department in the way that he should be. He is nothing but a total professional as a Minister, and will of course deny that and say what wonderful support he has from his officials. However, the recording of certain views in public debate can help strengthen the position of those whose position we wish to see strengthened.

With that in mind, I shall refer to the Green Paper on countering fraud—"Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business"—in which the Government signed up to four benchmarks. I hope that the Minister, if he cannot reply to my questions immediately, will give a public reply at a later stage. The four benchmarks in the Green Paper were as follows. First, it stated that the Government would be committed to measure fraud to a high degree of accuracy and report annually. I and many taxpayers would be interested to hear from the Minister what progress has been made on that front. Secondly, it gave a commitment to check and to clear bogus national insurance numbers. What is the timetable for the completion of that benchmark? Thirdly, it stated that the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate and the Audit Commission would ruthlessly work together to counter fraud. What progress has been made on bringing together those two important organisations in furthering the Government's counter-fraud strategy? Fourthly, it promised a review of the criminal and civil law and the extent to which it helps or hinders tackling fraud. The White Paper was totally silent on that, as on many other of the benchmarks in the Green Paper. What progress can the Minister report in that respect?

When, as a Minister, I discovered that there was not to be a benefit review of family credits, on the basis that the Department was getting shot of the benefit and the Treasury would be assuming responsibility, I counter-ordered that decision and asked that the benefit review take place. When I appeared before the Social Security Committee, I realised that that decision had been countermanded. Was the matter brought to the Minister's attention? Did he take that decision, or was it taken by officials without his knowledge? On leaving office, I assumed that the review would take place for the very reasons that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden listed.

Reports from counter-fraud officers demonstrated the problems associated with family credit fraud. In respect of new benefits, the Government aimed to design out opportunities for fraud. To prevent working families tax credit fraud, it was important to discover the extent of family credit fraud and the means by which it was being conducted.

I was closely involved with the security of the national insurance number system, so I asked that we should check the references and identity of some key members of staff. Has that programme begun? Did the Minister know of that decision, or was he bypassed? Although it is important to engage people to shop cheats, and so on, I hope that the Government do not think that merely starting another such campaign in the months ahead would constitute a proper counter-fraud strategy.

I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many others wish to catch your eye, so I shall deal briefly with the question of housing benefit. Thanks to the efforts of the Public Accounts Committee, it is estimated that fraud costs £840 million, but that estimate may be 30 per cent. out in either direction. The Government promised to report on fraud annually and measure it accurately, but the error rate has increased from 16 to 29 per cent. Two thirds of local authorities do not make proper efforts to recover wrong payments, and one third make no effort at all. For example, 161 authorities have yet to participate in the "do not redirect" service for housing benefit cheques. According to the Public Accounts Committee, perhaps as many as £50,000 a week per local authority could be saved if a non-redirect policy were implemented, which could constitute a saving of as much as £400 million a year. What progess have the Government made on that?

In respect of housing benefit forms, the BFI states:

"We also found examples of more serious problems, such as claim forms not being designed to record a national insurance number, claimant's income or liability to payment."

We are talking about a means-tested benefit, yet local authorities are issuing forms that do not record the income of those who will be paid benefit. That beggars belief. We know that 143 local authorities made no prosecutions for housing benefit fraud during the year on which the Public Accounts Committee reported. Of those, 57 could not be bothered to tell the Government whether they had a prosecution policy. There is also evidence of councillors or workers in another 57 authorities fraudulently claiming housing benefit, not one of whom was prosecuted. If that does not send out a powerful message that the Government are not serious about countering fraud, what does?

I end by suggesting nine reforms, simply on housing benefit, that I would like to see. First, time has run out for local authorities voluntarily to sign up to the policy of not redirecting to safe addresses fraudulently claimed housing benefit cheques. Either a tough national policy should be implemented within a couple of months or the Secretary of State must ask district auditors to surcharge councils that continue to send on cheques to fraudsters.

Secondly, how long will the Government allow local authorities to administer a means-tested benefit such as housing benefit without being sure that we are properly collecting income from those claiming the benefit?

Thirdly, will the Government give a timetable in which they expect every council seriously to recoup overpayments? Again, will the Secretary of State ask district auditors to surcharge councils if no policy is in place to recoup taxpayers' money on that front?

Fourthly, we know that local authorities have limited time in which to follow up some of the overpayments. What progress are the Government making to ensure that the private sector is used to help to recoup taxpayers' money that should not have been overpaid?

Fifthly, will the Government give a commitment that councillors or council workers found to be fraudulently claiming housing benefit will automatically be prosecuted?

Sixthly, the BFI's recommendations are not fully implemented in regard to housing benefit contracts. Where they are not, will the Government ask the Secretary of State to consider taking the operation of housing benefit away from those local authorities and putting it out to tender? The Government are, thankfully, developing public service agreements in national government. Is there not a case for trying to build on that success to ensure that there is a public service agreement with local authorities about the running of housing benefit?

The eighth suggestion is to make landlord benefit fraud a key fight. When the permanent secretary appeared before the Public Accounts Committee, she said that Scampion would deal with that. He does not make the sort of recommendations that are required. The Green Paper made three. It suggested, first, that there should be a register of landlords, secondly, that the Government should report as part of their annual audit measuring landlord fraud and, thirdly, that specialist teams should be set up to tackle landlord fraud. Will my right hon. Friend be able at some stage to report progress on that?

My last suggestion is this. My right hon. Friend is one of the most able of our Ministers at judging the public mood. Does he agree that a way to gain further support from the public would be to link specific gains from countering fraud to public programmes that taxpayers wish to see advanced? If that is his view, will he soon make progress in public on that front?

I look forward to the contribution of other hon. Members and the reply of my right hon. Friend the Minister.

It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who are distinguished parliamentarians and experts in this area. The Chamber is grateful to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for raising this matter in his personal capacity.

I want to deal with some of the broader issues that are prompted by the detailed comments that we have heard. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is right to draw attention to the scale of the problem. The alleged size of benefit fraud is larger than the entire budget of some Government Departments. One can imagine that some of the Minister's colleagues would kill for a share of the fraud money. It is therefore right to stress the urgency of the issue. Although the Government talk a good game, they are not delivering. Year after year, the accounts are not wholeheartedly accepted. While it would be wrong to say that nothing is being done, little is being achieved.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to designing out fraud, and cited the working families tax credit. If the Government cannot reduce the risk of fraud when they introduce a new, renamed or slightly restructured benefit, what hope is there? It is hard enough to get rid of existing benefit fraud. Apart from the fact that working families tax credit is paid through the employer's payroll —an open invitation to fraud—the child care tax credit element poses an additonal problem. Whereas it used to go to a handful of people on family credit, it will now go to many thousands of people. That opens up a whole new vista of unexplored fraud. Up to £150 a week of child care costs can be allowed in the benefit calculation, and the claimant can benefit by up to £5,000 a year. That is a whole new burgeoning industry, with which the Government have not got to grips.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the need for simplicity, which, one feels, is anathema to the Department of Social Security. Consider what the Department has done with regard to support for children, which used to be relatively straightforward. In addition to child benefit, there is now the working families tax credit, with its various credits, including child care credits. There will now be a children's tax credit, which is different from the child care tax credit and the working families tax credit. That is on top of child benefit. Apparently, all that will be streamlined in the future. The Government have introduced a more complex system, which, allegedly, they will simplify later. It will be interesting to see if they ever get round to simplification.

Some of the benefit fraud statistics are interesting. Pensioners are included among those reported as fraudulent claimants, and the Government are increasingly using means-tested approaches to support pensioners. If the Government want a simplified approach, they might adopt one of the policies that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and I have advocated—the targeting of pensioners through age additions on the state pension. The attraction of that method is that the only way people could commit fraud would be by falsifying their age. Intelligent targeting would be possible without the palaver of means testing, and using universal benefits. That kind of thinking is anathema to the Government, who say, "That's not well targeted enough," and then pay £100 to every pensioner in the land. That is not a joined-up strategy.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden mentioned the issue of data matching, and the fundamental conflict in having one big computer that contained all our information, which might be an effective deterrent to fraud, but gave rise to certain worries. I probably stray well beyond the party line by being sympathetic towards the idea of one big computer. It is astonishing that information of the same kind is gathered all over the place but never brought together. Most people would feel that the scale of the problem and the sums that we are talking about require desperate solutions. I sometimes feel that data protection legislation has gone too far. It has prevented many developments that it was not intended to affect. I would be interested to hear the Government's thoughts on that issue.

My overall perspective on the matter is that the Government make grand claims but achieve little. One can always tell when the Department of Social Security is achieving nothing because it issues lots of press releases. On benefit fraud, there were three press releases in the second half of January, including one on the area benefit review, which was issued on 28 January. It said:

"The percentage amount of benefit overpaid"—

on income support—

"due to fraud and customer error has fallen by 0.4 per cent. between the periods October 1997–September 1998 and April 1998 to March 1999. This reduction is not statistically significant."

The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) drew attention to that in the House the other day. In relation to the jobseeker's allowance, the press release states:

"The percentage of benefit overpaid … due to fraud and customer error has fallen by 0.2 per cent.… This reduction is not statistically significant".

On the same day, the Secretary of State said:

"We are winning the battle against fraud".

"Not statistically significant" could mean that the figures have gone up—we cannot be sure that they have gone down. There is a discrepancy between the Government's rhetoric on fraud and their delivery—or lack thereof.

I draw attention to a telling paragraph in the Public Accounts Committee report. Every year the Government announce that several billion pounds have been saved on fraud, but each year the figures for fraud never appear to go down. A marvellous paragraph in the report states:

"We asked the Agency why, given savings … of £2.5 billion over 3 years, the level of fraud on income support and jobseeker's allowance remained at over £1.5 billion".

The agency gave a rather coy answer—it said that it viewed

"the stock of fraud as the better and more important figure on which to target their actions."

That is a euphemism. One wearies of hearing grandiose claims about the sums that will be saved. The estimates of stock of fraud are relentless and do not go down. We should target that matter.

I conclude by proposing a way forward to the Minister. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead mentioned public service agreements. In relation to the Department of Social Security, I regard those agreements as toothless. In view of the Government's attachment to performance-related pay, will the Minister agree to tie his salary to his ability to make a concrete achievement in cutting benefit fraud?

I am grateful to follow three such distinguished hon. Members. The concluding suggestion of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) might be a little unfair—the Minister may be drawing his pension by the time that we know whether we have been successful in this regard, and it would be wrong to rob a pensioner of his income.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) on raising this important matter in this Chamber. I agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who commended the Public Accounts Committee's report. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden was speaking in a personal capacity, but the report is a welcome and helpful addition to our efforts to fight fraud.

The report arrives at an appropriate moment. Since early December, there have been four reports on fraud: the National Audit Office appropriation accounts for 1998–99; the Audit Commission's "Protecting the public purse: ensuring probity in local government", to which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead referred; Sir John Scampion's report on organised benefit fraud—my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden discussed its 19 recommendations—and the Public Accounts Committee report.

As has already been said, no one really knows the true extent of fraud in the system. My right hon. Friend referred to estimates of between £3 million and £7 million, but the right hon. Member for Birkenhead suggested that the figure might be a little higher than that. Whatever the figure, fraud is rife and endemic in the system.

The National Audit Office report found that there was an increase of £636 million in the 1998–99 accounts, which represents 5 per cent. of the total expenditure on income support. Our first task should be to admit that the situation is deteriorating. I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Northavon, who said that there was too much short-term spin in the system and that we needed a strategy to ensure that the tough rhetoric matched reality.

I, too, was struck by the press release of 28 January, which was headed "Darling welcomes successes in fighting benefit fraud". It states:

"Today's figures show that our tougher anti-fraud measures are beginning to bite … we are winning the fight against fraud."

However, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Office for National Statistics said that reductions in both areas were not statistically significant. He is therefore right to say that matters could have gone either way. It is no use pretending that things are happening when they are not, as that makes the service look ridiculous and undermines attacks on organised fraud.

There are two main problems: complexity and hands-off approach to the strategy. The Public Accounts Committee referred to complexity in its report published on 13 January. Paragraph 8.2 on page vi states:

"A key cause of error and fraud in income support is the complexity of the regulations, and the Benefit Agency told us that without simplification 10 per cent of payments would always be wrong. This is poor administration, which creates confusion, uncertainty for those most in need, extra costs and high levels of debt, much of which is not collectable."

Leaving complexity to one side, I shall now tackle the absence of a hands-on approach. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden talked about John Scampion's report, which deals with the lack of a sensible, practitioners' approach to the problem. I shall not go through the recommendations in detail, as my right hon. Friend did that extremely well. However, I shall emphasise a few points made in the report.

The report says that there was no strategic discussion between the benefits fraud investigation and the Benefits Agency security investigation service. Fragmenting resulted and organised frauds were not pursued. Page 16 states:

"There is insufficient flexibility in the total response to serious frauds."

It also states:

"There is an unevenness of response to serious fraud and organised frauds in different parts of the country".

Summing up the position, on page 18 it states:

"One immediate effect is the provision of a basic … information system dealing with actual or live frauds. Investigators both in BASIS and BFIS do seem handicapped by a reliance on exchanges of information derived manually".

The report paints a frightening picture of organised fraud, drawing attention to the fact that organised fraud is not being pursued. It also demonstrates something that I have discovered in visits to housing benefit offices and the Benefits Agency—local authorities rarely exchange information between themselves or with the Benefits Agency. Different housing benefit forms are used by different local authorities. Consequently, when one authority finds a loophole and closes it by changing its form, that is not necessarily passed on to other authorities.

Attempts to tackle fraud include the recent Fraudweb conference. However, there is no systematic method for exchanging information. My right hon. Friend pointed out that we must be careful how computers exchanged information between various groups. That is right. It is not just a question of computers. Much of the investigation of housing benefit fraud is done manually. It is recorded manually. There is no exchange. It is a question of chasing paper around, which is quite a problem in the system. Even at the very top there is, in the words of Scampion, an over-reliance on manual systems.

It is amazing that the Government accepted only one of Scampion's recommendations and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, it is only a pilot in a region. There are good and compelling reasons for having a national intelligence unit. I join my right hon. Friend in saying that the benefits of a national system cannot be understood by looking at it purely regionally. National fraud is precisely that. The Minister kindly organised an interesting and helpful seminar for spokesmen on social security at which we saw some of the instruments of fraud and the ways in which people went around the system. They were ingenious, and it was clear that there is quite a lot of national fraud. People organise in several districts. Without a national organisation exchanging information on fraud, there is no real possibility of tackling the problem.

We believe that we should go further. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) recently announced a change in Conservative policy. We would institute a single benefits investigation squad in conjunction with the national intelligence unit and we would look towards a dedicated anti-fraud partnership between local authorities, the Benefits Agency, the intelligence unit and the squad to ensure coordination. The chances are that, if someone is committing a fraud on one benefit, he will commit it on another benefit controlled by the agency.

It is important to ensure that there is still prosecution. It is also important to guard the gateways to benefit. Not everyone who gets involved in fraud starts out with that intention. Sometimes they just fall into temptation. They may delay the announcement of a bereavement or the fact that a son or daughter has reached a certain age. Each week they find it increasingly difficult to admit that they have committed a fraud. That is why the points that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead made about the working families tax credit are so important. Unless we are careful, we will have a system in which, to use his words, people are caught in a spider's web of corruption.

Fraud takes away valuable resources that can be better spent on those in need. It creates a climate of distrust among those receiving benefit. It robs the Government, the taxpayer and the poor in equal measure. It is time to hear how the Government plan to build an effective, hands-on anti-fraud strategy.

I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will accept that I cannot do justice to the points that have been raised this morning in 16 minutes. Unusually for me, I undertake to write to them on the points that I do not cover. It places a burden on the Department, but I shall not leave anything unanswered. One is always warned as a Minister not to make too many commitments to write, but anything that I cannot answer today will be answered in correspondence.

I welcome the debate on our strategy for tackling fraud and I will outline the action taken by the Government so far. No single initiative or decision can assist in solving the whole problem. The operation needs to cover a wide front. We have to tackle instrument of payment fraud involving giro cheques, or the benefit books, which is similar in design to, and reminiscent of, the ration book of the early 1940s, although that did not have a bar code. Both are open to the same sort of fiddling that I have seen myself. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) may know of cases in which no one has bothered to check information simply because a part-used payment book has been presented. That is one reason for changing to automatic credit transfer.

There is no point being wishy-washy about this. When ACT becomes the main method of payment, it will open up avenues of fraud not necessarily prevalent today. We must design and build in for that when we make the change. This is part of the current planning process. Instrument of payment fraud is serious. I do not wish to fall out with anyone, but we have enough problems with some of the porkies being told by some subpostmasters. I have been at the Department of Social Security for only seven months, less than half the time that my right hon. Friend was there, and I have just had drawn to my attention prosecution cases that made the press the previous day. Not a month has gone by without my being told of matters involving post office employees, the subpostmaster or his family, relating to instrument of payment difficulties—or fraud—that have led to prosecution. Those 18,000 cases are a tiny percentage, but the scope for such fraud is enormous among organised crime and what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) might term amateur crime. Both are bad, but I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point.

In 1997, two out of five income support claims—40 per cent.—were paid without sufficient evidence of identity. We estimate that the proposed changes—some of which were initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead—will save more than £1 billion during the life of this Parliament because of strengthened checks before money is paid. The national benefit intelligence unit will help combat organised fraud. There seems to be some misunderstanding, the reason for which I shall discuss with colleagues. We have not promulgated the totality of the Scampion report, nor have we dismissed it; far from it. I feel sure that the generality of John Scampion's suggestions will become a reality, although perhaps not all in precisely the way he suggested because government machinery issues are involved.

There was a reference to a pilot in the north-west. There is no piloting of the national benefit intelligence unit. There is nothing to be done. That was a misunderstanding. The pilot due to be held in the northwest is effectivley an exercise to discover how we can change public attitudes to benefit fraud. It is not the hotline, which is a separate exercise, but an attempt to change attitudes. Drink driving was socially acceptable 10 or 20 years ago; today it is not. Public attitudes have changed. But that pilot has nothing to do with the Scampion report.

The Department is training staff to counter fraud. I was present the other week at what I might call the passing-out parade of the first 87 accredited DSS counter-fraud officers, who underwent a course accredited by one of the universities, involving separate trainers and individual anti-crime companies. A further 1,000 are due to come through the system. The grand total is approximately 3,000. Those officers are given proper training in a part of their profession. Part of the Scampion proposals were for a professional head of counter-fraud activity. We need to invest in this important element and take it forward.

As members of the Committee have said, housing benefit is a separate issue. It beggars belief that each local authority designs its own claim form. I regret to say that I served on the Standing Committee which scrutinised the legislation setting up housing benefit all those years ago. The attitude of some local authorities is that it is not their money, so it does not matter, all they are doing is administering Government money. They must get their act together with council tax benefit and housing benefit. We are about to screw them down even more with severe financial penalties for not following through the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate reports and for not following the housing benefit rules, and not even following the law on housing benefit, which came in last September, which makes it a statutory requirement to obtain a claimant's national insurance number. Local government is at risk of losing that role. That is not a threat, it is inevitable, because the House will not stand for it. About £11 billion of taxpayers' money is being paid out, but some authorities are not taking it seriously because it is not local taxpayers' money and therefore not part of their budget. We have a series of measures, some of which we have already introduced and some of which we are about to bring forward, which will put the screws on those parts of local government that are not taking this seriously.

It is also unacceptable that we are not being given sufficient information about details of prosecution. At the moment, the Royal Mail "Do not redirect" service is still voluntary, but it is paid for by the DSS. Some local authorities said that they were not doing it because they had to run down their stock of envelopes. That is a pathetic excuse from professional local government officers. All they have to do is reprint the front of the envelopes; there is no problem with that. They must take that and other matters much more seriously.

Data sharing is a sensitive issue. I do not see it as difficult. The Data Protection Act 1998 must be followed at all times. I do not think that fraudsters, the public or even hon. Members fully appreciate the scale of data sharing that is going on within government, between the Department of Social Security, the Inland Revenue and local authorities. However, it needs to be extended and that is under active consideration, even to the extent of making statutory changes.

Data matching is dependent on comupters and, as was suggested, the computers in the DSS are rubbish. They were bought off the shelf and use old technology, so they did not do the job that they were intended to do. Nevertheless, there are data matching programs. We have supplied local authorities with 400 remote access computer terminals so that they can see what benefits we are paying to a claimant and thus whether they can verify the claim that is being made. That is an important element. We are also getting full reports from the Inland Revenue, particularly on the working families tax credit, an issue to which I shall return in correspondence. National data matching referrals were issued from 31 January and we began to retrieve the DSS Inland Revenue data shortly after the transfer of responsibilities last October.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead asked about the family credit review decision. It looks as though it was made without ministerial clearance, but I am not sure when. One must remember that there were two other Ministers between my right hon. Friend and me. I personally do not recall that decision, but my officials are checking on it. Let us be clear. The working families tax credit is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not classed as a benefit; it is wholly within the Treasury. Nevertheless, we are obtaining that information to cross-check with DSS benefits because that is important. P46 data—that is the form for new employees who cannot provide their new employer with a P45—is also being transferred from the National Insurance Contributions Office, which is another crucial factor, and the Inland Revenue is passing on details of the new construction industry scheme. We will have the first batch of data from that this summer.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden mentioned identity fraud. When I arrived at the DSS last summer from the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food, I was distressed to learn that fraud based on "The Day of the Jackal" had not been dealt with. That was recommended in a White Paper on registration in 1991, if I remember correctly. Everything in that White Paper was accepted and implemented, including new rules for getting married down a coal mine.

I had personal constituency experience of a "The Day of the Jackal" fraud. Twins who were born 30 years ago lived for only a day, and 27 years later, someone knocked on the parents' door saying that someone claiming to be their daughter was being held in a detention centre. One can imagine how the parents felt. That fraud followed the book exactly. I went through that episode chapter and verse with the previous Conservative Prime Minister. Internal discussions are still proceeding and I am pressing to have the matter settled. It is a gap in our identity fraud countermeasures.

I shall not have time to deal in detail with all the issues raised. I can tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead that we are spending considerable time scrutinising the management of the national insurance number system—both in the Department and in government with senior colleagues. Some problems are not clear cut, but we have reduced by half the number of people who issue national insurance numbers. I shall have to write to my right hon. Friend about checking individuals. Issuing numbers is now tightly controlled in local offices and it is half of what it was in terms of physical access.

As I said earlier, local authority claim forms were required by law from September last year and we are financially penalising those who failed to meet that requirement. It will not look good for the local authorities, their leaders or chief executives if their act is not cleaned up ethically, especially when the legislation currently in another place comes into force. Information on income must be obtained unless the local authority can acquire it from the DSS via remote access terminals. Otherwise, there is no legal authority to pay a means-tested benefit—it is as simple as that. Authorities will leave themselves open to financial penalties from the Government. Currently, around 250 authorities have adopted the verification framework. That is not good enough: they all should.

All Benefit Fraud Inspectorate reports are published. Only the odd sentence about how to commit a fraud is omitted, for obvious reasons. They are all published on the internet as a guide to good practice for local authorities. Late last year, we requested the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate to investigate the 30 top-spending authorities on housing benefit as a special one-off, which will be completed by this summer.

Insufficient action has been taken on published reports, which is distressing. We have to be careful to follow legal procedures in taking action against local authorities. When the benefit fraud inspection report has been published, authorities can comment on it and we can check whether they are actually carrying out their action plan. We have to go through those stages, after which some legal sanctions are available to us. We are now close to implementing action in that respect.

We wish to work with local authorities as partners, but we must make it clear that we are talking about our money—the Government's money—for which Ministers are accountable to this House of Commons. Local government is not responsible for it; we are, and quite right too. We have to remind authorities that, if the system is not working properly, they stand a good chance in the long term of losing that element of their finances.

Some hon. Members mentioned global figures. There is fraud, official error and claimant error—and we must try to separate them. Some fraud is organised and we are spending £2 billion a week on benefits. That money is open to systematic attack by organised criminals. The Department is carrying out a massive operation to buttress and secure the sytstem against that.

As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, we shall report back to the House of Commons on what we have been able to achieve. I am more than happy to ensure that every question that has been asked this morning is answered in writng. I know that colleagues will come back to me if they are not satisfied.

In the absence of the Minister for the next debate, I shall suspend the sitting until he arrives.

The delayed start to the debate is regrettable; nevertheless I wish Mr. Win Griffiths well.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for the fact that the sitting had to be suspended. I was addressing a group that came over on the state visit of the Queen of Denmark. I apologise for the fact that I was not able to be here earlier.

Thank you, Mr. Vaz.

I am pleased that I have this opportunity to debate the draft charter of fundamental rights of the European Union in this Chamber and to give a progress report to the House as its member on the convention drafting the charter. I was prompted to initiate the debate by one or two articles that appeared in the press between the convention's first business meeting, which took place just before Christmas, and the February meeting. Europhobes had once again dreamed up a fantasy island of fear about the charter; they wanted to damn and attack the Government and the European Union. Our debate is a good opportunity to set the record straight and to give Members a flavour of what the charter is about.

The process started at the Cologne summit. In a declaration made at the end of the summit, the European Council said:

"Fundamental rights applicable at the Union level should be consolidated in a Charter and thereby made more evident."

An annexe to that declaration stated:

"Protection of fundamental rights is a founding principle of the Union and an indispensable prerequisite for her legitimacy. The obligation of the Union to respect fundamental rights has been confirmed and defined by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. There appears to be need, at the present stage of the Union's development, to establish a Charter of fundamental rights in order to make their overriding importance and relevance more visible to the Union's citizens".

The statement continued, stating that the charter was based upon the constitutional traditions of member states and general principles of Community law. It stated also that rights under the charter should apply only to European Union citizens and that the charter should take into account the European social charter, the Community charter of fundamental social rights of workers and the European convention on human rights.

A unique body was set up to draft the document before the Council meets in December 2000. The idea is that the European Council will propose to the European Parliament and the Commission that they and the Council should solemnly proclaim a European charter of fundamental rights. Consideration would then have to be given to whether, and if so how, the charter should be integrated into the treaties.

The convention will include representatives of each of the 15 Governments of the member states of the European Union, one representative of the Commission, 16 Members of the European Parliament and 30 Members of national Parliaments. The United Kingdom will be represented by me, speaking for the House of Commons, and Lord Bowness, who speaks for the Conservative party in the House of Lords. A system of alternates will be in operation if either I or Lord Bowness cannot attend—the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) will take my place, and Baroness Howells of St. Davids will attend instead of Lord Bowness. Both alternates are, of course, members of the Liberal Democrat party.

The European Court of Justice has the right to two observers, one of whom will be a member of the European Court of Human Rights. In setting up the convention, the Council specifically asked that the Committee of the Regions, the Economic and Social Committee and the European ombudsman should be invited to give their views to the convention. That was done at our last meeting. Other bodies, social groups, experts and non-governmental organisations have been invited to express their views, and hearings will be held. The Royal National Institute for the Blind has been quick off the mark in sending me a copy of the statement that it gave to the President in office of the Council of Ministers on 22 July 1999, shortly after the Cologne announcement about the rights that disabled people should have.

We have already held two meetings; the first was on 17 and 18 December 1999, the second on 1 and 2 February 2000. We hope that the convention will meet as a full body in March, June, September and October and that it will meet as a working group later this month, twice in March, April, May and June, once in July and September and perhaps in October. That is a rigorous set-up, involving 11 or perhaps 12 meetings of the working group and four meetings of the convention. A lot of work will have to be done in the coming eight or nine months. Before each meeting of the convention as a working group, a drafting committee will meet. It will consist, in effect, of the executive body of the convention.

I return to the remit of the convention. Our purpose is to focus on the fundamental rights enjoyed by all European citizens and residents while also referring to rights bestowed by the other conventions, charters and so on to which member states are parties and of which the European convention on human rights is the outstanding example. First, the charter could emphasise communal values within the European Union. Secondly, it could raise awareness of existing fundamental civil, political and other rights that support human dignity, and oppose all types of discrimination and xenophobia. Thirdly, it could bring out the essential interface between rights and responsibilities for both individuals and Governments. Fourthly, it could declare boldy to European citizens their right to participate in the democratic process, to live, study and work, to provide and receive services and to set up businesses anywhere in the European Union.

The Heads of Government have made it clear that the charter should take account of economic and social rights, as intended in the European social charter and the Community charter on the fundamental social rights of workers. The ambition of the convention should be to highlight clearly the fundamental rights already deriving from treaties and from the Community law system, including case law built up in the European Court of Justice. It should not go beyond that or render void existing national and international law concerning fundamental rights.

It is clear that the charter is not meant at this stage to be a legal document and that such an option of inclusion in the treaties will be considered by the Council later. Despite that undoubted clarity of remit, there has been debate from day one in the convention on whether the charter process is sufficient to meet the challenges facing an ever-expanding Union. Some people see it as an opportunity to create an all-embracing and justiciable treaty-incorporated charter that will take the Union into new waters. The most ambitious protagonists of that view are Members of the European Parliament, most of whom—I speak as a former MEP—see the charter as an opportunity to enlarge and strengthen the European Union and to enhance its citizens' rights. Some MEPs are happy to take up the challenge of the Council's charter remit. A few would like to use the exercise to regain for nation states some of the sovereignty that they have pooled within the European Union. The majority, however, seek a charter that will at least be a protocol of the treaty but which will preferably be a legally binding document that is incorporated into the treaty and which covers all aspects of European Union activity, including common foreign and security policy, justice and home affairs and institutions such as Europol. Of the elected members of the convention, the European Parliament has the most opportunity, time and resources to develop an institutional view of the charter. Six of its committees are providing opinions for the report being prepared by the committee on constitutional affairs.

While the European Parliament wants to travel further beyond the remit of the Council than anyone else, it has allies who share its view that the charter must be legally binding. For example, the Council of Europe wants its own convention to be incorporated into Community law. The European Court of Human Rights would then be responsible for it. Not surprisingly, the court takes the same view. The European ombudsman wants the charter to be legally binding, as do the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

On the other side of the argument are the European Council, the European Commission, most representatives of national Parliaments, and the European Ministers of the German federal states. The scene develops continually and we shall receive many more views in the coming months.

That might become the defining issue of our discussions on the convention. Views have already been expressed on both sides of the argument; convention members have received enough views to fill a book from individuals and organisations on the contents and nature of the charter.

Most members of the convention wish to carry out its remit as provided by the Council. That seems a significant and ambitious task when one bears in mind the paucity of European citizens' knowledge of the European Union. We want to produce a clear statement of fundamental European Union rights, preferably on no more than two sides of an A4 sheet of paper—a formidable task. To give hon. Members a flavour of the rights, I have written—on two sides of an A4 sheet—some of the possible inclusions. Examples are the dignity of the human person, the right to life, liberty and security, access to justice and procedural rights with no retroactive criminal law, respect for privacy and family life, freedom to found a family, freedom of conscience, thought and religion, and freedom of expression.

Some of the rights are fundamental and we can all agree on them. However, should we include a right to a healthy environment, or is that just a worthy political objective? Might consumer rights be included? Are the rights to safety and health, to fair remuneration, to paid holidays, to a pension and to training at work and to social security fundamental, or are they matters that Governments and political parties have as worthy objectives, which should not be included in such a declaration?

EU citizens might be said to have specific rights. Those might include freedom of movement and of residence, the ability to vote and to stand in European and local elections, rights to diplomatic and consulate protection, to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European ombudsman, not to be subject to discrimination, to have equal access to the Community civil service and the right to write to and to receive letters from the European Commission and its institutions in one's mother tongue. There is a raft of possibilities for discussion. All my examples, and many more rights that I have not mentioned, can be referred back to a treaty, convention or charter to which the European Union, or its member states, has signed.

There will be problems to overcome. There might be an issue of the fundamental rights of non-citizens who fall within the scope of European Union legislation, such as workers from countries outside the Union. We must also remember that the Council might be minded to incorporate the charter into the treaty at a later stage. The charter should, perhaps, be a two-phase document. One phase could include the clear, concise and crucial statement of rights to which I have referred; the second could be a more detailed document, providing the relevant treaty, convention and charter references from which the fundamental rights were derived. Although the charter may not be a justiciable document, European Union citizens will be able to find out, by referring to the back-up document, what parts of the treaty and other documents may give them recourse to law.

However challenging the task may be, it will not be enough for those who want to create a legally binding charter immediately, going beyond the current competencies of the European Union to create an all-singing, all-dancing, all-embracing charter of fundamental rights. If time allows, the convention could consider, in a separate document, strongly perceived gaps and shortcomings in current enforceable fundamental rights in the European Union—an annexe of aspirations, so to speak. The two issues need to be clearly separated. I look forward to the convention's completing, in the next eight months, its primary task of drawing up a charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, declaring to all its citizens the rights that they hold under the treaties and other instruments of the European Union and its member states.

At this point I would have mentioned some of the fundamental statements made by key players in the convention process, but because many hon. Members obviously want to take part in the debate, I shall sit down and listen keenly.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on securing this Adjournment debate. The issue may not be the stuff of headlines—"EU proposes charter of fundamental rights"—but it is important and needs airing. We need to be rigorous in scrutinising the purpose of the charter and its implications.

I do not regard myself as a Europhobe in my own party or by anyone's parliamentary standards. I am an enthusiastic supporter of human rights. On the face of it, the European Union intends by the charter to make the issue of human rights more visible to citizens of member states and thereby to raise the profile of human rights protection. I am sure that we all enthusiastically support that aim, particularly since the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998. However, the issue is controversial.

The nub of the matter is that we already have a European convention on human rights. It was drawn up 50 years ago, mainly by British lawyers. The European Court of Human Rights has 50 years of experience and expertise and has amassed considerable case law. We send to the Council of Europe a sizeable United Kingdom delegation, which works hard and is well respected, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis).

The charter was debated on 25 January at the last meeting of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, and a clear position was set out. The Select Committee on European Scrutiny has taken a keen interest. It spent two days in Brussels in December, and took evidence from several key players in the drafting of the charter.

Several important questions need answers. First, what will be the status of the proposed charter? My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend began to deal with the issue, but it is worrying that although a drafting body is to work intensively for eight months, it is still unclear whether the resulting charter will be legally binding. If it will, thereby enabling citizens of European Union member states to take grievances or breaches of fundamental rights to the European Court of Justice, there will be two courts in Europe that deal with human or fundamental rights. I am not a lawyer, but will not that lead to confusion and competition between the two courts? Human rights protection should not be a matter of competition. If the ultimate aim of the EU is to write the charter into a treaty, it can do that simply by taking up the invitation that the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly extended to it on 25 January this year to incorporate the European convention on human rights into a Community treaty.

Two other issues have important implications. First, the proposed charter could send out the signal that we are creating a two-tier system of human rights protection within Europe. The Council of Europe, with 41 members, has a much larger membership than the EU. Even with the proposed EU enlargement, EU membership could appear to provide a superior protection to the remaining 26 members of the Council of Europe. In the context of a wider Europe in which we are trying to incorporate many eastern European countries, it would not be wise to advocate such divisive action. The implementation of human rights should not be a matter of competition between the EU and the Council of Europe.

The second issue raises the question of what the charter says about the Council of Europe. What are we to make of what is going on? What signals does it send out? Although the issue has not been readily picked up by the national press, on 8 February The Independent carried an article on the charter. In the first paragraph, its legal affairs correspondent described the charter as replacing

"the outdated European Convention on Human Rights."

Although that is the correspondent's reading of what is going on, it is interesting that a serious newspaper should choose to print that opinion.

That was one reason why I wanted the debate. The claim was outrageous and far from anything that had been discussed. One of the charter's great sensitivities is how to ensure that the European convention on human rights remains a pre-eminent player. We are looking at the issue of signing up so that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg continues to play a pre-eminent role.

I thank my hon. Friend for making that statement, but even if the correspondent in The Independent is wrong, the paper has a wide readership. Its interpretation of why the charter has been drafted showed how it decided to read the signals.

In conclusion, I am not a Europhobe, but we need to question why the Government need to sign up to a charter. We have the Human Rights Act 1998 and are active in the Council of Europe. I am not convinced that the charter will build on our experience or benefit UK citizens any more than they benefit from the 1998 Act. We need to tread cautiously.

Before I call the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) I must advise hon. Members that an informal protocol allows Front-Bench spokesman to use the final 30 minutes to respond to the debate. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who introduced the debate, considerately curtailed his comments to make time for other hon. Members. I know that several right hon. Members wish to make a contribution, so I ask them to bear it in mind that we have only about 30 minutes for the debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on obtaining the debate. I applaud the fact that he is obviously ahead of the game because as yet awareness of this topic is low. I can comply with your request to be brief, Mr. Cook, because the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) has covered much of the ground that I intended to cover. I wanted to pose exactly the question that she posed: what is the charter all about? The hon. Lady was right to emphasise that the issue is controversial. As a former colleague of the hon. Lady at the Council of Europe, I am only too well aware of the existing convention and European Court of Human Rights. One has a certain apprehension about the prospect of another court being created to deal with such matters. Many institutions, at home and abroad, could be made to work better, and it would be in our long-term interests to try to make existing institutions work better instead of creating rival institutions, which is likely to lead to the problems mentioned by the hon. Lady.

Order. I must remind hon. Members that this is not a Committee. This is a sitting of the House and I am a Deputy Speaker.

I do apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

My concern is that, in Europe today, we see the establishment of rival institutions to those that have served Europe tolerably well since they were created in the aftermath of the second world war. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West referred to the Council of Europe, which now represents 41 nations. That represents a broader body of opinion than does the European Union, which comprises only 15 nations.

However, it is not only in relation to human rights that we see the European Union making a grab for more territory. We can see the corpus juris proposals coming down the track, which will challenge, and perhaps ultimately take over, national jurisprudence. Only yesterday, I read in the newspapers that European Union Foreign Ministers took a major step towards the creation of a European army, in that they approved an embryonic military staff with an operational role in early warning and strategic planning. Of course, colleagues on the Benches to my left, who are all members of the Western European Union as well as the Council of Europe, know exactly what the European Union said very recently about the future of the WEU. In creating euroland, the European Union is creating an alternative form of currency to national currencies. I am concerned that this debate about the charter of fundamental rights offers another illustration of how the European Union is trying to take over something that already exists and does not need to be duplicated, especially as it is questionable whether the new convention will be any more successful than the current institutions.

The reason why I felt moved to speak in the debate, albeit briefly, is that although politicians on the continent are frank about their aims, objectives and long-term aspirations, in this country we still pretend that certain things will not happen; we pretend that the European Union will not be able to grab more powers in more areas. It is greatly to the credit of the hon. Member for Bridgend that he has given us the opportunity to debate these matters and, as I said earlier, my interest in the debate is in flagging up the fact that the European Union is making a grab for territory that it does not need to make a bid for. I suspect that the British public, and Members of Parliament, are unaware of what is going on and unaware of where we are being led. We should take note of the report of the words of Romano Prodi, the President of the European Commission, 10 days ago. Under the headline, "Commission becoming a government, says Prodi," it stated:

"Europe is forging its own government and army, Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission claimed yesterday."

I am grateful to have the opportunity to flag up the dangers involved when our own politicians are economical with the truth.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on securing the debate. He beat me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) to the draw; we had decided that once the debate on the Ilisu dam was out of the way, we were going to apply for a debate on the proposed European charter because of our anxiety about some of the statements made in Strasbourg about attitudes to it.

As other hon. Members seem to be bearing their breast on their attitudes to Europe, I shall do the same. I am happy about the euro, federalism holds no problems for me and loss of sovereignty does not mean a great deal. What is important, however, is that we have working institutions and that, as Members of Parliament, we can defend the interests of our constituents and our country as best we can in those institutions. I am happy about what is taking place and I wish that we had already signed up to the euro.

Having nailed my colours to the mast, I now explain my grave concern about the proposed charter of human rights. The charter has grown like Topsy; it started as a proposal to have a European ombudsman within the European Community to deal with malpractice in administration, just as our ombudsman does. People with a grievance about what was happening in Europe and its institutions would be able to go to the ombudsman, which was perfect and proper. However, in Cologne, the idea grew a new dimension and went onwards and upwards. People said, "Perhaps we should do something about a charter of human rights," and "Perhaps we should have something that is justiciable," and "Perhaps we should take everything over and take everything in." It is obvious from the work load that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend described that it would be startling and fantastic to try to get through so much in eight months or a year.

I have no objection to a general charter on "The Rights of Man", or a proclamation, as in 1916, setting out basic, fundamental human rights. That would be fine, great, splendid. The problem arises when such a charter becomes justiciable. We and our fellow members of the Council of Europe have spent many years reforming the European Court of Justice, changing and streamlining its procedures and the appointment of its judges to meet the extra work load resulting from the expansion of the Council of Europe. A great deal of important work is likely to be thrown down the drain if the European Union produces a set of justiciable principles.

My hon Friend the Member for Bridgend referred to conflicting jurisdictions and different courts reaching different decisions. The court at Luxembourg already has some human rights jurisdiction arising from the treaties. That was one of the problems that we sought to raise when the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties were being negotiated, because it created a possible area of conflict. The powers that be at that time did not consider it so large, but now it is likely to to be very large indeed. Therefore, our first problem is one of conflicting jurisdictions However, what is more important to me, and what most concerns me, is the prospect that the conflict may split the membership of the Council of Europe between the rich countries that are members of the European Union, and the countries that are not and are never likely to be, under the present terms and conditions.

One of the Council of Europe's strengths has been the fact that former communist countries and countries that have broken away from the Soviet Union have been admitted under strict conditions regarding the application of human rights. Indeed, Belarus is outside the Council of Europe because it cannot meet the requirements. We have had problems with countries such as Ukraine over the death penalty, abolition of which we were eventually able to achieve through the force of the Council of Europe's moral persuasion. Less than 18 months ago, a large number of people were on death row in Ukraine. Those who were to be executed did not know when they would be executed, and their families did not know two months after the execution. The pressure exerted by the Council of Europe changed that situation. We can do it by saying "You must meet these standards." However, if there are to be two rival jurisdictions, with the European Union countries looking to Luxembourg rather than to Strasbourg, there will be one court for the rich countries—the established countries—and another for lesser breeds without the law, and that will be a real problem.

One of the strengths of the struggling democratic parties in those countries is that, against precedents or Governments seeking to be dictatorial, they can turn round and say, "We have the convention on human rights. We must abide by that. When decisions have gone against countries like Britain and Germany"— a large number of decisions have gone against the British Government—"those countries have nevertheless accepted the decisions and worked the system." If we have gone away and a weak grouping is left outside, the pressure to follow the European convention on human rights and so on will be limited. Those countries want to be in, but if we take ourselves one step further away, it will be much more difficult to enforce those rights internationally in Europe among the struggling democracies that have weak judiciaries, poor social services, corrupt police forces and terrible administration systems, because they will be seen to be separate and apart. The European Union and the convention looking at those matters should seriously consider that point. Justice should be universal, it should not be confined to the rich few in the centre. We should be able to expand it in that way.

I hope that a fine statement of principles will emerge from the convention, but the principles that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend read out started off like articles 1 and 2 of the convention on human rights, so why are we repeating them in that way? Can we put into a justiciable document matters relating to social policy, much of which I support, but which will differ from country to country and may cause the Europhobes to foam at the mouth? There are matters that should properly be the responsibility of member states, and it is right that as many decisions as possible be taken at a lower level. However, universal principles of justice should be a matter not merely for the European Union but for Europe as a whole. It is regrettable that the United States has not signed the universal declaration of human rights; had it done so, the whole world might have a proper scheme.

We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for taking this opportunity to report in detail on his work for what I prefer to call the drafting committee for the charter, rather than a convention, because there has been a tendency to confuse it with the convention on human rights. I hope that he will seek further opportunities to initiate such debates during the next eight months; otherwise, I feel sure that our hon. Friends will.

It is clear that hon. Members share a common view on the matter. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who used to be a member of the delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Although there may be differences of emphasis, the common concern among hon. Members is the development of the charter for human rights. As leader of the United Kingdom delegation, I can say that none of its members would disagree with the general thrust of what has been said this morning on the effects of duplication.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Ludlow when he says—I hope that I am quoting him correctly—that politicians on the continent take a different view. My experience has been that politicians in Parliaments throughout the 41 member states in the Council of Europe have expressed concerns similar to ours.

My point was that European politicians take an approach to Europe that differs from that of their British counterparts, inasmuch as they spell out exactly what they want to achieve. In this country, we are not so frank, although we may be heading for the same destination. I doubt whether members of the Council of Europe take the view that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

I would never suggest that the hon. Member for Ludlow was less than frank in his views. My point is that politicians in national Parliaments in other member states of the Council of Europe are concerned about the implications of the charter for human rights, particularly in respect of duplication, and for two reasons.

First, if there is a curse in Europe, it is the constant petty jealousy among organisations such as the European Union, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. There is constant jockeying for position, and a constant wish to take—as the hon. Member for Ludlow described it—and duplicate anything that is popular. Indeed, the charter for human rights owes its genesis to growing disillusion among many member states with the European Union itself, and a search was undertaken to find a measure that could enhance its popularity.

Nevertheless, looking at the matter objectively, there may be advantages in having some kind of charter or declaration, provided we avoid the disadvantages, which my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Ludlow have eloquently described. The problem with duplication is not only the confusion that would arise if there were two conventions or charters that were both subject to legal proceedings—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) explained—but the confusion that would arise if there were two courts, which would be even worse if they reached different decisions.

Another big disadvantage, which I ask the Minister to take particularly into account, is that duplication equals waste. It results in additional, unnecessary expenditure. It is no good telling us that the additional expenditure would come from Community resources. It would be a burden, however great or small, for the British taxpayer in two ways—through our Government's expenditure and because the resources of the European Union ultimately come from its citizens. We should be concerned about that expenditure, and I hope that the Minister and his Government colleagues will take the matter seriously into account.

I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on securing the debate. It has been a useful first canter round the course of the subject, and I am sure that we shall return to it on many occasions. A common thread has emerged in that hon. Members from a wide range of parties have expressed a cautious approach to the suggested changes. I shall explain the Liberal Democrats' stance in due course.

I should like to set out the fundamental principles that should form the underlying benchmarks by which we judge any changes to European Community legislation—in this case, whether we want to make progress towards a new charter. One of the most important benchmarks is the question whether the charter would do anything to help individuals throughout Europe. My view of British and European politics is that our activities should centre on releasing the potential of individuals throughout the Community. Ensuring that fundamental human rights are in place, and enhancing those rights, is an important factor in that. How that is to be achieved is a big question, to which the charter could provide part of the solution. From that perspective, we welcome the initial discussions that are taking place.

Although the Liberal Democrats welcomed the Human Rights Act 1998, we should like the Government to go further and introduce an equality Bill that would extend some of the areas that are not covered by the 1998 Act.

On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the European convention on human rights is the fact that it does not tackle issues such as age discrimination and same-sex relationships, or address problems that arise in respect of new information technology and e-commerce? Those issues are very much in the frame in terms of human rights, which is one of the reasons why an equality Bill should be considered.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. A great deal of work remains to be done on existing legislation before we move too quickly into other areas. Given my hon. Friend's role on the committee with responsibility for scrutiny, I am sure that he will be able to raise some of those points.

With regard to the convention's being outdated, is the hon. Gentleman aware that a new protocol that will provide sexual and gender equality has just been passed?

Clearly, we welcome that. Some of the new issues that are emerging need time to bed down so that we can judge their effectiveness, and any additions during that period could cause problems in their implementation.

The Liberal Democrats are committed to reforming Europe and developing a charter of human rights for the European Union. That will be a fundamental step in the right direction. For 50 years, Europe has co-operated heavily in the economic sphere. Over the next 50 years, the focus should shift to co-operation not only on regulation, but on the rights of individuals. The charter could redefine that, and help to make people more aware that the Eurpoean Union has a role for them as individuals in future.

Why is change necessary? A layman might think that the European convention on human rights already provided enough protection in the EU, but he would be wrong. Unlike our national courts, the 'European Court of Justice cannot give direct effect to the European convention on human rights because that convention is not an integral part of the EU. EU treaties have no code of human rights, and the European Court of Human Rights is not able to redress the situation when EU institutions, rather than individual member states, breach convention rights, because the EU has not acceded to the ECHR. In this context, there are loopholes, and we need to improve the situation.

I move on from those questions of ideals to the more difficult question of how a charter might work. Many issues need to be considered and we should not underestimate the complexity of the task in hand. First, on the difficult question of subsidiarity, the Cologne Council made it explicit that the charter of fundamental rights was not an attempt to subvert the current constitutional order of member states and that it should strengthen the EU's identity and policies. That is the right approach. Secondly, the charter must not reduce the rights of citizens—on the contrary, it should, if possible, safeguard such rights in each member state. That, too, is right and proper. Thirdly, the charter should enhance rather than undermine the European convention on human rights, which I agree needs enhancing. We welcome some reforms, but the ECHR is, in many respects, rather old fashioned and its application in EU countries has been rather uneven. The ECHR of 1950 is common to all member states, but not all subsequent protocols have been signed or ratified by member states.

That is extremely important. The ECHR is 16 pages long, but the number of reservations and declarations runs to 60 pages. That clearly shows that there is a need to clean up the document and to make it more relevant to the modern world.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. Perhaps the charter will help to generate reforms and improve our current procedures.

One of the most difficult problems involves the date at which, and the extent to which, the charter should encroach on national preferences. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) discussed what the charter's legal character would be in that context. It is crucial to get it right.

We could pursue various options to reach a solution. First, a proclamation could be used to give the EU a human face, which would involve a set of values or a written document. However, that would be a wasted opportunity if it failed to close some of the current loopholes. Secondly, a declaration could be issued that described the current state of affairs, informed EU institutions of their duties and used a stronger form of wording. A third option would involve using a protocol and amending the treaty so as to oblige the European Court of Justice and member states to be informed of its terms. Should that approach be enshrined in the treaty? Should that requirement be enforceable in national courts, and should individuals have direct access to the European Court of Justice as a matter of last resort? Or, bluntly, are we going too fast and too far, and should we pause while we put some of the institutions in place?

I was attracted by the two-phase approach that the hon. Member for Bridgend suggested. There is merit in that approach, which might involve firm time scales that would ensure that we achieved targets before moving on.

Liberal Democrats believe that there is logic in moving towards a structure that incorporates the charter, but that we should avoid creating a two-tier system, which the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) discussed. I was taken by his observation that a two-tier system might allow poor and richer countries to be treated differently. It would be a nonsense if two different legal opinions competed over the issue of rights.

The common-sense approach involves accepting that existing structures improve performance radically and that additional elements could be added. Much can be done to reform the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, which should take on some of the new elements that could be added to them. It should also be a priority that they should be in a position to cope with enlargement by up to 12 new member states over the next few years.

One need only ask any farmer—I acknowledge that this is not directly related to the issue—whether it makes sense to have a battle lasting nearly two years in the European courts to resolve the beef issue. Our current systems are too slow and need to be improved. The incorporation of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law is a welcome development, but is an on-going process. It will take a considerable time for our judicial systems to adjust to it.

In conclusion, we welcome the Government's approach, but we suggest that it should be a cautious one. If we ensure that our current institutions are up to speed, in order and providing a good service for people, we can then ensure that the convention and the changes relating to the new charter can be brought on track. At this stage, however, we should monitor progress carefully to make sure that that happens at a time appropriate to the best interests of individuals throughout Europe.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on raising this important issue. It has not been the focus of much public attention, and today's debate will concentrate minds on what is happening, give hon. Members an opportunity to express their concerns—they have already made some very pertinent observations—and allow the Government to clarify their position.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the mandate for the establishment of the charter was set out in Cologne in June 1999. That made it clear that the charter would contain rights and freedoms set out in the European convention as well as rights pertaining to European Union citizens. It also stated that account should be taken of economic and social rights. The Cologne communiqué, which was approved by the Prime Minister, clearly allows the drafting convention to set out a wide-ranging and far-reaching set of rights, should it wish to do so. Initial indications show that that is exactly what is happening.

Two claims have been made. First, it was said that the charter would cover only existing rights. Secondly, it was said that it would not be legally binding. Those assertions have been repeated on a number of occasions, and I would like to explore them in this debate. However, I should first like to comment on the observations made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones). She asked some important questions about the status and applicability of the charter, a point that was amplified well by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).

The Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons that

"we are not proposing a constitution of Europe. We are proposing that a charter of rights should codify in a single place the rights that already exist in European legislation…we broadly welcome that European charter of rights".—[Official Report, 25 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 184.]

Moreover, the Minister of State told the House:

"I made it clear in my evidence to the Scrutiny Committee that it is a charter of existing rights. It sets out the rights that have been granted to EU citizens as a result of treaties and legislation. It is not binding or enforceable. It is a charter, as we have said, not a new treaty."—[Official Report, 1 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 400-401.]

However, we are now rather used to hearing such reassurances from the Government. We have heard them in the past, and they are frequently not matched by reality. We are used to being told that items that have been agreed at European level pose no threat, only to find that they are far more integrationist than anything originally envisaged—or, more important, supported—by the British people. We are used to Ministers saying one thing in Britain and signing up to something rather different in Brussels. We must read the small print carefully.

The Government must provide concrete guarantees on some of the fundamental issues arising from the charter. They must provide a specific guarantee that a whole new set of wide-ranging rights will not be created at a European level. It is becoming clear that the extent of rights discussed by the convention goes far beyond anything already contained in the treaties. During its second plenary session earlier this month, the convention was reported to have accepted, as a working basis, a list of so-called rights drawn up by its secretariat. That list includes economic and social rights, such as the right to work; rights governing working conditions, including rights to fair pay, weekly rest and paid leave; collective rights including worker information and consultation; and a right to strike. It includes social protection rights such as a right to health, social protection, health insurance, maternity protection, and integration of disabled people.

I pointed out earlier that those were merely subjects for discussion. In relation to some of the rights mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I questioned whether they were fundamental rights or objectives that political parties might regard as good to put in their manifestos. We should not regard the convention as a monolith that will swallow any view wholesale. I hope that my earlier speech outlined the different strands of opinion on the matter.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I accept that diverse views exist. The question is what will ultimately happen. At a European level, rights have been amplified and expanded, which creates all sorts of problems. I want to address that point with regard to nation states. At first glance, we can all agree with the hon. Gentleman on the broad aim of improving provision for European citizens in most areas. However, who defines those rights? Who decides whether current employment legislation in Britain contravenes a European right to strike? Who decides whether the current level of the minimum wage constitutes fair pay? Who decides whether the Government's changes to incapacity benefit will contravene rights to social protection and the integration of disabled people? Will the Government guarantee that the charter will include only rights already established in the treaties?

The second fundamental issue is whether the charter will be integrated into the treaties, and whether that will cause it to be legally enforceable through the European Court of Justice. That is the approach favoured by the European Parliament. The British Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament, Andrew Duff, who is one of the European Parliament's rapporteurs on the matter, has reportedly called for a binding charter, and for the European Union to have a legal personality so that it may subscribe to the European convention on human rights. Liberal Democrat Members of the European Parliament voted for the charter to have a legally binding effect.

When Lord Goldsmith, who is the Government's representative, submitted a paper that placed emphasis on the need to adopt a simple text that could have maximum public impact, the representative from the Dutch Parliament responded:

"We are not here to draw up a brochure to promote Europe but to draw up a legal text, transposable into law".

Many have expressed concern about recent judgments by the European Court of Human Rights. An example was the appeal by the killers of James Bulger. Concern has been expressed about the effect of incorporating the convention into UK law, especially in Scotland, where it is already enforced. Examples exist of Scottish law being judged incompatible with European human rights law. It would be wholly unacceptable to have a new tranche of so-called rights forced on Britain by a European court that has a track record of interpreting treaty articles in an integrationist way. The charter may start as a non-binding statement, but it may not end up that way. The social chapter, for example, started life as a non-binding statement. It is now incorporated into the treaty, and allows social legislation to be imposed on Britain, often by qualified majority voting.

That is how integration in Europe evolves—step by step. Others have recognised the reality of that. As one contributor to the convention's second meeting noted:

"Even if it is not our intention to adopt a text with legal value, we must be careful as this text could become binding."

It is worth recalling that Commission President Romano Prodi has boasted about this process. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow alluded to that. Only a few days ago Mr. Prodi boasted to The Independent that "step by step" the Commission was behaving "like a growing government".

First, we are given a list of generalised principles. Then there is a far-reaching range of broad so-called rights. First there is non-binding statement, and then there is a treaty chapter incorporated into the treaties and enforceable in the European Court of Justice. First there is a bland outline of generalised aims, and then there is a charter for wide-ranging interference in British law.

The hon. Gentleman has set out a course of activity. Where would the British Conservative party draw the line?

I hope to receive some clear assurances from the Government about exactly where they are drawing the line. We will certainly wish to respond in detail to that information. We all look forward to hearing the Minister in a few minutes.

The second guarantee that we seek is that the charter will never be incorporated into the treaty or be made legally enforceable. That is a guarantee that the Foreign Secretary signally failed to provide when challenged by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), in the House yesterday. For many, the charter is all part of a wider integrationist agenda in Europe. The integrationists are pushing for a European Union with its own Government, army, taxes, foreign policy, criminal justice system, constitution and concept of citizenship as well as currency—in other words, a single European state. It is vital that this charter does not become part of that process. It is vital that the Government stand up for the view of the mainstream majority of the British public. It is vital that they end the process of marching, step by step, towards a single European state.

I begin, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by apologising again for being late for the start of this debate. As I explained to the Deputy Speaker at the time, I was addressing a meeting of students who had come over with the Queen of Denmark as part of the state visit and I was unavoidably delayed. I apologise to hon. Members for keeping them waiting.

I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on his success in securing the debate. As he has the support of those sitting next to him, he was bound to be successful in the ballot. I am delighted to see so many other hon. Members present, including the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) who, as usual, wants to broaden out the debate into other matters. I shall deal with all the arguments.

This is an excellent opportunity to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend about the excellent work that he and others are doing on the drafting body of the charter of rights. This is perhaps our only mechanism to get a report back on what is happening. I hope that he will be successful again in the near future so that he may give us an update on what is happening there. There is no point in hearing from the man who is reading the manuscript when one can hear from the man who is writing the book.

We welcome the fact that we have two excellent representatives, from the House and the other place. We have another excellent representative, the Prime Minister's representative Lord Goldsmith, who was appointed at the start of this procedure and who comes to the task, unlike my hon. Friend, as a lawyer. He is perhaps one of the most eminent silks of his generation. It is good to have three such outstanding people at the drafting body of the charter of rights. All in the House will welcome the fact that the United Kingdom's place is assured by having such good representation.

A number of hon. Members mentioned the Cologne conclusions. It may be helpful to read out paragraph 44, which states:

"The European Council takes the view that, at the present stage of development of the European Union, the fundamental rights applicable at Union level should be consolidated in a charter and thereby made more evident."

That is why the charter of rights was set up which, as the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) said, the Prime Minister was glad to approve. We all feel that it is high time for a document to be produced that clarifies the rights and responsibilities of European citizens and is submitted to the European Council and the people of Europe.

The charter of rights is part of the Government's reform agenda on the European Union. The charter will set out existing legal rights enfranchising the people of Europe. New rights will not be added, as it would be inappropriate for the drafting body to legislate on behalf of the European Union. That is partly because the charter body is outside existing EU structures, a setup which enables us to have representatives such as Lord Goldsmith, who can give the drafting bodies expertise and insight that Members of this House and various European Parliaments may not have.

I am amazed that the hon. Member for West Suffolk suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend was talking about an attempt to legislate. There is no such attempt. As European citizens, we already have rights and responsibilities.

My hon. Friends the Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) have asked whether there will be any overlap with the European convention on human rights. I hope that there will not, which is why we have representatives who, to use the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), ensure that duplication and waste do not occur. My right hon. Friend is a veteran of the Council of Europe and knows how important it is that European institutions do not duplicate the work of other bodies.

Of course, there will be some common issues. However, the drafting body will ensure that there is no duplication. We will set out the source of existing rights in the European convention if, indeed, there are any such rights. I therefore commend to the House Lord Goldsmith's effective paper, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. It sets out a user-friendly approach to the whole process, stating clearly in ordinary, simple language what people's rights are and the source of those rights.

That is the background to the charter of rights. The hon. Member for Ludlow expects my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and his colleagues to write a great constitution. However, I must disabuse him of that notion. If my hon. Friend and five Europeans were to meet in a café in Brussels for a cup of tea, the hon. Member for Ludlow would believe that they were plotting the formation of a superstate. He must calm down, as there are no shadows in the charter of rights. There is no possibility of any advance on the Cologne conclusions, which were repeated by President Herzog of the charter drafting committee, and others. So the hon. Gentleman need not worry.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk asked about the European army. There is no such army. No decision was taken on Monday or Tuesday to have a European army. I was present when a decision was taken that was in line with the policy of successive Governments, Conservative and Labour—that Europe should have the capability to deal with crisis management in Europe: the so-called Petersberg tasks.

The Minister may misunderstand the point. The President of the Commission has expressed a wish to move towards a European army. The Commission is driving the agenda towards an integrationist Europe, with all its attendant institutions. That is obvious; it is on the record and has been said before. I hope that the Minister will reject that viewpoint now.

The hon. Gentleman is obsessed with the sayings—or alleged sayings—of Romano Prodi. I welcome the hon. Gentleman formally to the Front Bench as shadow Minister for Europe. I can take him with me on my next trip to Brussels so that he can see what is happening—[Interruption.] I had only a brief lunch on Monday because we were busy dealing with important issues. When he goes to Brussels, the hon. Gentleman will find that the representatives of the United Kingdom—at official and ministerial level—fight extremely hard to maintain the interests of this country. We fight our corner as everyone else does, but we also believe in the notion of Europe—a Europe of nation states, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the House of Commons yesterday.

Let us not get carried away with the European superstate, with the charter of rights as a European constitution, or with the allegation that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), Lord Goldsmith, Lord Bowness and others are seeking to stick things in which we shall not find out about. I want to make it clear to the House of Commons that we shall see the fruits of our efforts in draft form. Although the Commission and European Parliament are more than welcome to their opinions and more than welcome to try to shape the debate as they have always done, the final decision on the proposals rests with the European Council. I was asked whether the decision would be legally binding—

Will the House of Commons have an opportunity to debate the draft proposals before a decision is taken?

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and others will seek every opportunity to debate these matters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North knows, I and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary always come to the House of Commons to debate forthcoming European Council events. We did so before Helsinki and we shall do so again before Nice. It is hoped that the process will be completed this year. There will be ample opportunity to question Ministers through the mechanisms that have been established to facilitate debate.

Hon. Members should not wait for a debate in the House to debate the charter of rights. The hon. Members for Ludlow and for West Suffolk can e-mail and write to Lord Goldsmith, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and to Lord Bowness if they wish to pursue a point. They can even write to me and they will receive a reply. There are many opportunities for hon. Members to present their views on this important issue.

I wish to make it clear that the Government regard the charter of rights as extremely important. For the first time ever, European citizens will know their rights and responsibilities. The user-friendly approach adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and by Lord Goldsmith is the right approach. For too long, people have believed that the European Union is shrouded in mystery. It attracts the attention of people such as the hon. Member for Ludlow, who believe that sinister actions are taking place in Strasbourg and Brussels. They believe that terrible things happen at our meetings in the shadows and margins of the European Union. That is simply not the case.

The charter of rights represents a first step on the way to explaining in simple and user-friendly language exactly how people benefit from membership of the European Union. I do not yet know the final form that it will take. It could be a small pledge card or a larger document. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend will have his way and it will be on two sides of A4 paper. The Foreign Secretary and those who serve on the drafting body, as well as myself, want to ensure that it will not be a legalistic document incomprehensible to people in Ludlow, Ipswich, Winchester or Hull. It must be relevant to people's lives.

The constant thrust from the Conservative party—although not from the Liberal Democrats—is that everything that happens in relation to Europe is negative. When we go to our European Council meetings and when my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and others attend meetings of the drafting bodies, we make a valuable contribution. In the 18 weeks since I became a Minister,' I have been overwhelmed by the support that the United Kingdom has received in leading and guiding debate on the European Union. The enlargement process that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced in the House only yesterday gives us another opportunity to ensure that the rights, responsibilities and values that we hold so dear in the European Union can be exported to the new applicant countries. This is a great opportunity to show Europe—and the whole world—the benefits of the EU. I hope that hon. Members will continue to support the work that is being done so that we have a charter of rights of which we can be proud.

Order. We can proceed to the next debate, but I would ask those hon. Members who wish to leave to do so quietly now.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of rail services in north London in general, but particularly those in my constituency of Enfield, North.

My request for the debate was prompted by the deterioration of rail services to Enfield and the consequent loss of confidence of my constituents who, for reasons that I shall come to later, are dependent on the train operating company West Anglia Great Northern or WAGN. Their fears are compounded by the news that many train operating companies are renegotiating to have their franchises extended. I do not object to that in principle. We all understand that to bring about the levels of service that we require, it is not unrealistic for train companies to have a reasonable period in which to reap the benefits of their investment.

I believe that most of my constituents wholeheartedly support the Government's attempts to shift traffic from the roads by encouraging more extensive use of railways and I think that they would also understand many of the problems involved in trying to achieve that. None the less, the shortfall in service delivery with current user levels undermines the prospect of success.

The London borough of Enfield estimates that it has seen an increase in road traffic of approximately 1.5 per cent. each year for the past 30 years. That clearly demonstrates that the problem is not new and that the Government are right to pursue an integrated transport system. While I intend to concentrate on the example of Enfield, I am certain from discussions with hon. Members who represent other north London constituencies that much of what I say today will echo the concerns of many thousands of other rail users throughout the region. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) and for Edmonton (Mr. Love) share my concerns. I was also approached by other hon. Members who have in turn been approached by their constituents and by business representatives on this matter, particularly regarding urgent need for improvement in lateral routes such as the East London line.

WAGN is a subsidiary of Prism Rail. In 1997 it was awarded the franchise for the London, Peterborough, Cambridge, King's Lynn and Stansted lines operating from Liverpool Street, Moorgate and King's Cross stations. The contract was for seven years and three months, so is due to expire in 2004. Those rail services go through my constituency and provide essential passenger rail transport from nine stations in Enfield, North—from Enfield Chase, Gordon Hill and Crews Hill in the west, and Southbury, Turkey Street, Ponders End, Brimsdown and Enfield Lock on the eastern lines and Enfield Town. I say essential services because unlike many other parts of north London there are no rail alternatives for commuters from Enfield, North. The underground does not extend as far as Enfield, North and road transport into central London is barely an option, due to congestion and travelling time.

Enfield borough council estimates that some 10,000 people use the railways to travel from Enfield to work each day and that a further 1,500 use the service to travel to Enfield to work each day. I rely on the service from Enfield Chase station into Finsbury park or Highbury and Islington to pick up the underground to Westminster. Although I use this service regularly, I am indebted to the Enfield rail user groups, which represent many of my constituents, for the broad range of data that they have collected from each of the lines through Enfield, North. I make particular mention of the Enfield Lock rail user group and the business user group, which have provided specific information on the shortcomings of WAGN's services for both private passengers and business and industry in Enfield.

In December last year, the three Enfield Labour MPs invited WAGN's managing director, Euan Cameron, to make the journey from Turkey Street in Enfield, North through Edmonton Green to Liverpool Street to see at first hand the service that rail users receive. To his credit, he was happy to take part. He discussed with us the various problems, which he also discussed with rail user groups' representatives. Mr. Cameron, in an earlier letter to me, was candid enough to concede that the service provided by WAGN had been unacceptable.

The purpose of the journey was to identify specific areas where urgent improvement is needed. Those problems were further highlighted at the Enfield transport users forum in December and again in the community debate in January, both events being initiated by Enfield council. They were welcome initiatives under its agenda for modernising local government.

The shadow strategic rail authority makes it clear that one of the prime proposals for replacement franchises is to reduce perceived barriers to switching from car to public transport, but the experience of many who participated in our local forum made clear the extent of the problem, including increasing overcrowding on trains. WAGN conceded that there has been a 7 per cent. growth in the number of passengers during peak hours and an overall increase of 12 per cent. in two years—something that we should welcome—yet there are no additional trains serving this already overcrowded route.

Mr. Lloyd Tew Cragg of the Enfield Lock rail user group has written to me, and to WAGN, to describe the experience of his fellow passengers. His group is nicknamed, with typical gallows humour, the mushroom club, as each morning commuters on the Lee Valley line remark to each other when they have boarded their train, "There's not mushroom in here, is there?" Mr. Tew Gragg also highlights the remarkable practice of trains failing to stop at certain stations if they are running late. I understand that rail operators are judged to have failed punctuality targets only if trains complete their entire journey late. Therefore trains running late at certain stages of the route can make up lost time simply by missing out whole stations. The consequences are obvious. Passengers are stranded at those stations until the arrival of the next service, which outside peak hours, can be as much as 45 minutes later. That places an additional burden on already overcrowded trains and stations as passengers who would have expected to depart on a previous service are forced to compete for space on a later train.

Trains running along the Lee Valley line during peak hours are scheduled only every 30 minutes. The disruption caused to people with appointments or obligations by cancelled trains or those that do not stop is all too easy to imagine. This problem is further exacerbated by a lack of information for passengers about cancellations and delays. With no information screens and stations that are often unstaffed, passengers cannot get information or advice about their journey plans. Trains users do not only travel out of Enfield to work: Enfield has many businesses which also suffer from poor rail services. Employers in the borough report that their staff are reluctant to use public transport, especially trains, because of the unreliability of services. Off-peak travel is especially precarious, and therefore becomes impractical for many shift workers and those on flexi-time. Employers also report that that may have an effect on their ability to recruit and retain staff.

Such difficulties almost pale into insignificance against those that people with disabilities endure. Enfield Disablement Association has noted that disabled people are unable to use WAGN services freely. They are required to give about 24 hours' notice if they need assistance and they must state which train they intend to use, and that is on a local network. The train network is largely inaccessible to them because of problems with stairs. Indeed, if a disabled person embarks on a train at Enfield Town station, the only station where he can disembark, wherever he wants to go, is Liverpool Street—all other stations are inaccessible.

The design of stations and the problems of poor availability of information compound the difficulties faced by people with visual impairment, and they too, have made representations to me. In its defence, WAGN states that most stations were built in the Victorian era and that it, too, is concerned about accessibility, but it says that major work would be required to solve such problems. There the matter rests, and no progress is made.

Passenger safety on trains and at stations is another major concern. The poor maintenance of stations, such as Southbury, which could best be described as derelict, produces an intimidating atmosphere. Attacks have occurred at that station. Apparently, even a member of WAGN's staff was attacked there. The neglect of that station and others makes people afraid to leave trains when darkness has fallen. Enfield Women's Safety Forum highlighted that problem and constituents have told me that they will travel beyond their station to disembark at a station where they feel safe. In effect, no-go zones exist when daylight has gone.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. As she has said, she is reflecting widespread concern among rail users in the borough of Enfield and more widely in north London. Like hers, my mailbag is regularly full of complaints about the service that WAGN provides. Many of the issues that she highlights are shared. When she takes the train from Enfield Chase to Finsbury Park or Highbury and Islington, she travels through my constituency, through the stations of Grange Park, Winchmore Hill, Palmers Green and Bowes Park. Those are the stations that my constituents use most, and they raise similar issues to those that she mentions.

New Southgate and Hadley Wood stations on the line to Welwyn Garden City are in my constituency. The state of New Southgate station is similar to that of Southbury. It is important that WAGN recognises such problems and deals with station safety. WAGN has reached an agreement with some local people to open a café-bar at Palmers Green station, which has provided an excellent new facility at that station and helped to improve the safety and security of the passengers who use it. That is a positive example.

Order. Interventions should be brief. Another example would definitely be over the mark.

My hon. Friend makes the point well. WAGN has made some welcome improvements, but they would be even more so if they had been more widespread. By far the most mail that I receive is on that local issue. Complaints continue to be made; people do not stop when they have made one complaint. Week in, week out, trains do not turn up or are late. People cannot obtain the information that they need, or they feel unsafe on a station platform, so they will complain again. I encourage my constituents to complain. It is an important right, and they should exercise it to ensure that West Anglia Great Northern knows the size of the problem.

I am not sure whether WAGN is aware of the problem. Enfield rail user groups have undertaken their own survey of passengers' opinions of the service. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate agrees with me that those findings sit at odds with the survey published by the shadow strategic rail authority, which claims that 76 per cent. of passengers nationally thought that the service was good or fairly good. However, that figure represents the level of satisfaction with a particular journey on the day of the survey. For regular users, the figure for the general level of service dropped to 64 per cent. The figures are higher in the surveys undertaken for users of the Enfield service.

I do not question the honesty of the shadow strategic rail authority or the validity of its survey, but those figures would be greeted with incredulity by Enfield rail users. That leads my constituents to feel as if they are the poor relation to those who use the more lucrative passenger services from Cambridge, King's Lynn, Stanstead and elsewhere. Those of my constituents who use the railways say to me that they feel that Enfield was taken on by WAGN because it happened to be part of the franchise, but that the company's real commitment is to the more distant areas, which have faster trains and more lucrative lines. It seems that Enfield is not a priority, and that it not good enough.

The managing director of WAGN denies that, but experience of the railway service in Enfield confirms my constituents in their view. More than 1,000 people have signed petitions organised by Maria Preswell of the Enfield Lock rail user group. Their demands are reasonable; they include four trains an hour, four carriages per train and better information about services. That is the least that we should expect, but it is a long way from what we get.

I referred earlier to a letter that I received from Euan Cameron. I am pleased to say that the managing director of WAGN agrees that it is not good enough.

I had hoped to pursue the matter directly with him at a meeting in January, but that was cancelled by WAGN at short notice. We had hoped that Mr. Cameron would provide us with a timetable for the implementation of the specific improvements that we raised with him on our train journey. He agreed to provide a timetable, but sadly—like some of his trains—it has not yet arrived.

We understand that a fare increase is imminent. I believe that it should be tied to improvements in service. Rail fare increases not accompanied by service improvements would be a further insult to my constituents. Those increases should be not something for nothing but something for something—a phrase used elsewhere by the Government. If we have to pay increased fares, we should expect an improved service.

In the short and medium term, we want four trains an hour. We want trains of four carriages rather than two on either side of the peak hours. We want waiting rooms that are safe and that make passengers feel secure. We want improvements for people with disabilities, and we want improved information for all passengers. The shadow strategic rail authority says that the replacement rail franchises are expected to be much longer than the original franchises and that they may last for between 10 and 20 years. A review will be conducted every five to seven years to assess the franchisee's peformance. This debate is not a WAGN-bashing session, but it is clear to my constituents in Enfield, North that improvements are badly needed. They will support a renewed franchise only if vital improvements start to become apparent. Otherwise, they will be horrified at the possibility of a 20-year franchise.

We have a strong case that we have put on a number of occasions and in different places. We have strong support from our local authority, which is making sterling efforts to make the case for our passengers and to improve the rail service for the people of Enfield, North and for the rest of Enfield. However, very little is happening. The reality is that, for all that we have said and for all the times that we have raised the issues, we do not see the improvements that we seek. I am meeting the managing director of WAGN in just over a week's time, and I shall again put the matter forcefully. I hope that my hand will be strengthened by this debate.

The Enfield rail users group asked me to add my voice to its own to achieve these improvements. I ask the Minister and the Government to add their voices to ours.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) for raising an issue that is important for her constituents and of general interest to the travelling public. I should like at the outset to pursue a couple of points that she made towards the end of her speech. She said that she wanted four trains an hour throughout the day. My advice is that that service is already provided. If that is not the case, my hon, Friend might want to provide me with details after the debate, but I am advised that there are four trains an hour throughout the day, until early evening. I am advised that there are no two-carriage West Anglia Great Northern trains and that the minimum number of carriages is four. Again, I must rely on the advice that I am given, but I should be interested to see any advice that my hon. Friend has to the contrary.

I should like to start by making a few general points and then deal with the particular case outlined by my hon. Friend. The Government accept that passengers want punctual and reliable trains and that they want to feel safe, comfortable and secure on trains and at stations. They also want easy access to accurate and impartial travel information and adequate compensation when things go wrong. For that to happen, we need more investment in infrastructure, rolling stock and station improvements. We also need better and more consistent performance, a clear and affordable fares structure and a rail system that is fully integrated and which allows seamless transfers with other public transport modes. Only then can we hope to encourage people to choose to travel by public transport rather than by private car. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister issued new instructions and guidance to the franchising director last September, asking him to deliver improvements through renegotiation of the terms of franchise agreements.

When considering renegotiation requests, we have asked the franchising director to give due weight to commitments on current performance, customer services, innovation, efficiency, new or earlier investment, securing better performance, initiatives to produce integrated transport, willingness to give passengers a greater voice in the level and standard of services and value for the taxpayers. Unfortunately, it is not possible for all the current franchise agreements to be renegotiated overnight. The franchising director's overall objective is to replace most shorter franchises—those expiring by 2004—within about two years. The WAGN franchise, which expires in April 2004, will be one of those to be considered, so my hon. Friend has raised the matter at an appropriate time.

I should like to address my hon. Friend's specific concerns about WAGN's services. As she said, it would be only fair to note that passengers travelling on its lines generally enjoy a comparatively punctual and reliable service. Although passenger numbers have increased, WAGN has not experienced the massive increases that have resulted in severe overcrowding on the neighbouring Thameslink service. I appreciate that her commuters will not necessarily be satisfied to know that the situation on their line is not nearly as bad as that on a neighbouring one, so I do not make too much of the point; I merely refer to it in passing.

My hon. Friend referred to the results of the national passenger survey based on a study of 1,000 WAGN passengers. It found that 77 per cent. were satisfied or very satisfied with the service, compared with 76 per cent for the whole network. I heard what she said about the figure being lower among regular commuters.

As we have heard, WAGN's passengers have not escaped the frustrations caused by poor performance, despite its relatively good track record. Commuters forced to stand every day will take little comfort from the fact that overcrowding levels are below agreed thresholds.

WAGN scored lower on value for money than any other train operating company in the national passenger survey, with only 30 per cent. of pasengers being satisfied or very satisfied—that accords with my hon. Friend's information. Those using West Anglia Outer services will take little comfort from the fact that the latest shadow rail authority performance bulletin listed WAGN as one of the top five performing train operating companies. Discounts are currently being paid because of poor punctuality. There are contradictions between the different figures.

My hon. Friend expressed concern about inadequate service levels, especially in the off-peak period. WAGN is operating at and, in some cases, beyond, its contracted passenger service requirements. When setting the requirements, the franchising director ensured that a core provision was protected so that the service would be broadly similar to that operated by British Rail before franchising. However, from what she said, it seems that the provision might be inadequate; the franchising director will no doubt bear that in mind when the time for renegotiation comes.

My hon. Friend also expressed concern that WAGN is missing stations to avoid triggering penalties for late-running trains. However, the company is penalised under the regime by the franchising director if trains fail to stop at an advertised station. Likewise, it is penalised for running short formation trains. I asked how the director would know when a train did not stop at a station. I am not competely satisfied with the answer. My hon. Friend might know how he would. She should pursue the point with the franchising director, and I might too.

My hon. Friend suggested that fare increases should be tied to improvements in services. She surely knows that the franchising director has capped the increase of key fares at 1 per cent. below the rate of inflation. However, for London commuter fares, increases can be adjusted by 2 per cent. above or below the fares cap to reflect the quality of operators' services. WAGN was held to below-inflation increases because of its performance during the year to July 1999. Her commuters can have the mild satisfaction of knowing that an incentive is built into the fares structure that ought to be pressing the company to provide a better service.

My hon. Friend mentioned access for disabled passengers. I accept that there are problems for which there are no easy short-term solutions. Train operators are required to produce and comply with the disabled people's protection policy. They have made a number of improvements to stations and trains to make them accessible. New rail vehicles have to comply with the rail vehicle accessibility regulations. They require operators to conform to detailed specifications for wheelchair access and to provide clear colour contrast, audible and visual announcements and a range of other features to help people with a wide range of mobility difficulties.

Train operators recommend that passengers with disabilities contact their dedicated help point before travelling, but I agree that having to do that 24 hours in advance is not helpful. If contacted in advance, operators can usually arrange for staff to meet disabled passengers at their departure station, accompany them to the train and help them to board.

The fear of crime deters many people, especially women, older people and people from ethnic minorities, from using trains. Many train operators have taken steps to improve security by installing CCTV and help points, improving lighting and introducing rapid response arrangements.

The local council held a forum for businesses and services in the borough on CCTV. The only group that was invited but did not attend was WAGN.

If that is so, it is clearly unsatisfactory.

As for consultation with passengers, we are determined that they should be given a say in their rail services. That is the only way to make train operators provide the services that meet the needs and expectations of their customers.

When considering requests for franchise replacement, the franchising director will consult rail users consultative committees, the London regional passengers committee, local authorities, regional planning authorities and regional development agencies, as appropriate. We might add relevant Members of Parliament to that list. My hon. Friend will no doubt want to draw her speech to the attention of the franchising director. The rail users consultative committees and the London regional passengers committee will also be encouraged to talk to a wide range of individual users and local groups to ensure that passengers' views are taken into account.

The franchising director's objective is to secure the earliest possible delivery of better services for passengers while providing demonstrable value for money for the taxpayer. However, it is important to remember that the franchising director is not committed to accepting the proposals that are received from prospective franchisees. If an application is to succeed, it will have to guarantee better performance, more investment, the expansion of network capacity and improvements for passengers, as well as providing the taxpayer with value for money. If applications fail to deliver those improvements, the franchising director could decide to allow existing franchises to run their course.

In conclusion, we are determined to improve the quality of rail services and to build a railway that is fit for the 21st century. However, the problems that my hon. Friend mentioned show that WAGN has some way to go before it consistently delivers a rail service that meets passengers' needs. I am grateful to her for raising the subject. No doubt the franchising director and WAGN will take careful note of what she said.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate greenfield sites. Although it is an important issue in my constituency, I suspect that Bromsgrove is representative of other authorities with predominant greenbelt land. They, too, face severe problems as a result of the Government's requirement for additional housing, which is passed down to the county councils, which then pass it down to the district councils. That creates great difficulties for greenbelt authorities. Bromsgrove comprises 92 per cent. greenbelt, which is a high percentage compared with other authorities. Sadly, the Government cannot give us figures about which other authorities have more than 90 per cent. greenbelt land in their boundaries, but clearly there are some, and those authorities have a problem as a result.

It is important to remind ourselves why the greenbelt was created in the first place. Greenbelt land is countryside that has special designation and protection so that it will act as a barrier and protect the countryside and, in the case of Bromsgrove, prevent the overspill of the metropolis of Birmingham from spreading further and further into the Worcestershire countryside until the metropolis and countryside become indistinguishable. Greenbelt land should receive extra protection because it forms a greenbelt around inner cities to prevent them from sprawling beyond their boundaries, but, sadly, it does not seem to receive that extra protection. That is a problem in Bromsgrove.

Conservative Members find it frustrating that, whenever we debate the greenbelt, the Government say that there is good news because they have created more of it—the Minister's response may fall into line with that. The only reason why the Government have found it necessary to create more greenbelt is because they have allowed the despoliation of the land that previously existed. Of course, if we were properly to protect the greenbelt, it would not be necessary to create more of it because the creation of greenbelt suggests that areas of countryside are in danger of being developed and greenbelt designation is necessary to stop urban sprawl. If proper planning laws were in place, it would not be necessary to create more greenbelt, however, desirable it is to designate such land once the problem has been created. My aim in the debate is to highlight that problem and to ask the Government to give extra protection to areas such as Bromsgrove and other areas of greenbelt so that we can maintain the beautiful English countryside and keep towns as towns, rather than create a great mix of things.

To explain the problem that exists in Bromsgrove, we have already bound sites for about 2,600 houses out of the 3,950 homes that we have had to build between 1996 and 2011. Extra homes have been added to our original target, but we must still find space to build another 1,350 homes. The problem is that there are no remaining useable brownfield sites. I say "useable" because, to be accurate, there is a small brownfield site in Hagley near the sewerage works, but to make that site viable it would be necessary to use some greenbelt land, which would be self-defeating. The other non-greenbelt site is an area closer to the town of farmland that is grade 1 agricultural land. Although it is not designated as greenbelt, it is certainly green land, and that is the only other site in the whole of Bromsgrove that is not classified as greenbelt on which we could build homes. Therefore, district councils tell me that we need about 100 acres of greenbelt land to meet the requirement for 1,350 more homes. That does not include future annual development requirements under which the district council will be obliged to find even more space for such further development as the Government think appropriate. Bromsgrove has a real problem. It is a greenbelt authority, under that special protection, but is no different from anywhere else with respect to the distribution of housing targets. It is expected to take further homes and to spoil what the greenbelt was intended to protect.

I appeal to the Minister for a change in the way in which housing targets are organised. We should not allow the inner city to sprawl out. At present, the greenbelt classification seems not to mean any added or special protection for authorities such as Bromsgrove, which seems to defeat its purpose.

How did the figure of 1,350 homes come about? Worcestershire county council, which handed down the target to Bromsgrove, has a housing target of 6,450 homes by 2011. They have been distributed between the six Worcestershire districts so that Bromsgrove, with 92 per cent. greenbelt land, has a target of 1,350 homes; Wyre Forest, next door in the north of the county, with 65 per cent. greenbelt land, has been given a target of 850 homes; Redditch, with 35 per cent. greenbelt land, has a target of 1,050 homes; Wychavon, 25 per cent. of which is designated greenbelt, is to have 1,300 homes; Worcester, which is 10 per cent. greenbelt land, is to have 1,500; and Malvern, which has no greenbelt land, has a target of 800 homes.

Bromsgrove, despite containing by far the largest amount of greenbelt, has been given the second highest housing allocation in the county. That seems perverse, given the reasons for the greenbelt and the aim of protecting parts of the country and clarifying the boundary between countryside and town. It is bizarre that Bromsgrove has been allocated only 50 more houses than Wychhavon, which has only a quarter as much greenbelt land.

The way in which the figures have been handed down by the Labour-controlled Worcestershire county council is frustrating, but it is outrageous that it is understood—although the county council will not clarify the location of the sites—that Worcestershire has enough brownfield sites to accommodate 50 per cent., if not more, of our housing target. Why did not Worcestershire, in making the allocation, do as the Government would presumably expect and seek out those sites for use before distributing the housing targets willy nilly around the various districts, without attention to the needs of the district that deserved the most protection?

Our frustration is increased by the fact that Bromsgrove schools are now overflowing. It is a delightful place to live and it is popular, because the schools are excellent. My postbag is full of mail from disappointed parents unable to get their children into the schools of their choice. On the last occasion when a large area was handed over to developers—a place called the Oakalls in the centre of Bromsgrove—the district council asked that a new school should be built as part of the dowry for the development. The county council turned that idea down, then changed its mind when it realised Bromsgrove's problem, but it was too late. The developers had offered other forms of dowry for that development. To have built a school at that stage would have meant paying market price, which would have been too expensive for the public purse.

We felt rather done down that the county did not properly consider our schooling, or our roads, when the figures were handed down. Our share of the roads budget is decided by the county council, yet one of the justifications for giving Worcestershire a disproportionate share of housing is that because we are so close to Birmingham, and many people who want to live in Bromsgrove will work in Birmingham, it makes sense to build houses in Bromsgrove. If that really is the county council's rationale for building more houses, I appeal for extra money to cope with the road problems that will be caused by yet more cars commuting into Birmingham and other cities every day. That is another reason for my disappointment with the figures.

The matter has caused a huge upset locally. A new Conservative council was elected in May last year and the demise of the previous Labour council was probably due to its proposal to build an arts centre on green land in the town centre, which was extremely unpopular in Bromsgrove. I suspect that it caused the Labour party to lose the election more dramatically than it would otherwise have done. The Labour council sat on proposals for further development in Bromsgrove; it was left to the new Conservative council to take the difficult decisions about which greenbelt land should be gobbled up in the Government's housing targets.

The issue is very fraught; for example, last night in Stoke Prior, one of the villages in my constituency, 200 people turned up to a public meeting to protest about the way in which the housing target affects their area. That is a lot of people to turn out to a public meeting on a cold February night, and people in many other villages in my constituency feel equally strongly. But if the Government insist, the houses will have to go somewhere and difficult decisions about which greenbelt landscape should be despoiled must be taken.

I pay tribute to the council leader, Councillor Nick Psirides, who has done a fantastic job in taking a grip on our new district council and grappling with the problems, keeping the public fully informed of the difficult decisions that are being forced on us by the Government's housing targets and giving people a chance to show their enormous strength of feeling. Councillor Psirides organised a Bromsgrove greenbelt pledge campaign and invited members of the public to telephone in support of it. So far, 2,050 calls have been made in support of maintaining Bromsgrove's greenbelt, and only 280 against. That shows my constituents' anxiety about the proposals.

I hope that the Minister will reconsider whether the present policy is in our best interests. The purpose of the debate is to plead with her to reconsider how the housing targets are allocated and to think about whether we are risking the greenbelt and the countryside beyond it by the "predict and provide" way of deciding housing allocation. The Government's target is for two thirds of new housing development to be on brownfield sites. That figure is all the more awesome when one considers that Bromsgrove has no available brownfield site, yet our housing allocation is handed down without any consideration of that problem.

If the Government are serious about having two thirds of all new homes built on brownfield sites, they must do more to change the mechanisms of the planning and allocation process. As my constituents can tell the Minister, vast tracts of brownfield sites in Birmingham and across the west midlands conurbation are desperate for fresh investment to be reinvigorated. It would be much better to refurbish them for new homes and other developments than to gobble up more countryside. The planning process needs to be given much greater consideration if we are fundamentally to change these dynamics.

If the Government look at the demographic changes that are taking place, they will see that there will be more single people in households than families. Single people might like to use the facilities of the inner-city areas and to live in smaller attractive units. We have some good examples in Birmingham, where the inner city has been rejuvenated to provide lovely living accommodation.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the figure for the future suggested requirements for homes for single people does not just include single young people but older people and those with different marital circumstances. The simple idea that all those people can live above the shop, as it were, is not borne out by the figures.

I thought that I was going to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman because it is those younger and older people who will need the new homes. Elderly people often like to live together near local shops and where they can enjoy the comfort and support of one another. It is just as appropriate for them to live in inner-city areas than outside in the countryside where they will need to use a car, which is expensive. They might be afraid of losing their driving licence if they became too ill and infirm. More use should be made of inner-city areas for young and old people. If the Government's two-thirds requirement for development means anything, why do they not do that?

Finally, and this is an ancillary point to our problems in the greenbelt in Bromsgrove, I turn to the reuse of agricultural buildings. We are having problems in our sensitive areas. Present planning guidance encourages the change of use of agricultural buildings to light industrial, and some inappropriate planning applications are being made in very rural areas where the roads are inadequate for industrial activity. There is a case for looking at the guidance. I understand that farmers need to make a living and that they have had great difficulties recently with farming policy, but change of use in the greenbelt is even more sensitive than in the countryside.

Will the Minister look at that so that the option of turning the footprint of agricultural buildings into housing rather than light industrial use can be more easily considered than under the present planning laws? In many cases in my constituency that would be a more desirable change of use than light industrial would be. On that note, I will sit down and allow the Minister time to respond. I look forward to her reply, which I hope will allow Bromsgrove to be reprieved from all this extra housing that could despoil our landscape.

As is customary, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) on securing the debate and on raising the important issue of development in the greenbelt. I am pleased that she shares the Government's commitment to the greenbelt, which has been demonstrated by the increase in greenbelt land since May 1997. She will be tired of hearing that that contrasts starkly with the record of the previous Government, who systematically took away greenbelt land during their last 10 years of office. She is right when she says that we should bring back land to the greenbelt. We need to turn around the legacy of a Government who substantially depleted this country of it.

I would like to set out the Government's general policies on development in the greenbelt and then to emphasise the importance of a planning system led by up-to-date development plans. I will also cover greenbelt and development issues relating to Worcestershire and Bromsgrove more specifically. The Government have stated many times their support for the greenbelt; but let me state it once again, for the record. We remain firm in our commitment to greenbelts. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning reaffirmed that in answering a question from the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) as recently as 8 February.

Greenbelts are meant to remain open for as far ahead as can reasonably be foreseen, and there remains a strong presumption against inappropriate development within them. That does not mean, nor ever has, that development cannot take place in greenbelts. It does mean that inappropriate development can take place only where very special circumstances exist that outweigh the harm to the greenbelt. That is something that we take very seriously.

Government guidance on development or redevelopment of sites in the greenbelt is set out in planning policy guidance note 2. Local authorities must take its content into account in preparing their development plans, and it may also be material to decisions on individual planning applications and appeals. PPG2 states that most development in the greenbelt is inappropriate. There are a limited number of occasions when new buildings are not inappropriate, and that includes those used for agriculture and forestry. It also recognises that the re-use of existing buildings, with suitable safeguards, should not prejudice the openness of the greenbelt, since the buildings are already there.

If a proposal does not meet the criteria set out in PPG2, it will be viewed as inappropriate development. For permission to be granted, exceptional circumstances need to be demonstrated that outweigh the impact on the greenbelt.

Regional planning guidance sets the framework for greenbelt policy, including the direction of long-term development. Greenbelts are established through development plans. Many detailed greenbelt boundaries in England have been set in local plans and in old development plans, but in some areas, including Bromsgrove, detailed boundaries have not yet been defined. Up-to-date approved boundaries are essential to provide certainty as to where policies on the greenbelt apply, and to enable proper consideration of development options.

In Bromsgrove, I understand that the greenbelt is broadly defined by the existing structure plan. However, the detailed boundaries will be confirmed only when the Bromsgrove local plan is adopted. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove failed to take that into account. As she said, there was some delay in Bromsgrove in getting the local plan adopted, but the delay was attributable to the whole council, not to one group within it.

In 1997, the local plan inspector recommended that the Bromsgrove local plan create areas of development restraint and safeguarded reserve areas of land to meet possible future requirements. Detailed boundaries for greenbelt were being drawn through the local plan process for the first time. I am pleased to learn that the council is in the process of preparing draft modifications and it is for the local authority to decide the extent to which they follow the inspector's recommendations.

As I said, not all the boundaries in Bromsgrove have been defined in detail. The hon. Lady mentioned 92 per cent., but that does not apply to boundaries that have been agreed and approved through a local plan process. When they are defined, they will need to be capable of enduring beyond 2001 without the need for frequent or short-term changes. Bromsgrove will therefore have an opportunity to make changes to the draft plan and bring it fully up-to-date. I appreciate that the local authority has difficult decisions to make. They are competing imperatives—that is the nature of planning. Elected representatives must take those difficult political decisions. However, I hope that the plan can be adopted as soon as possible.

The Government lay great store by authorities having up-to-date development plans to aid development control and to help to reconcile the often competing demands of development and of the protection of the environment and the locality. I am sure that the hon. Lady would want to assist in that process.

Planning policy guidance note 3 on housing, which will be published shortly, is an important document. It will play a key role in countering the irresponsible development policies that the previous Administration pursued for more than a decade. The hon. Lady talked about predict and provide, but we started to change that old way of doing things when we took office. We have adopted a predict, monitor and manage approach, which is much more flexible. The key points are rigourous local authority housing capacity assessments; a sequential approach to housing site identification, putting the reuse of brownfield sites before the use of greenfield sites; a phased land release system, again putting brownfield sites first; a more efficient use of land through higher housing densities and lower parking standards; a better quality of design; and a national target of 60 per cent. of new houses to be built on previously used land.

I am delighted to hear what the Minister is saying. Is it possible for Bromsgrove district authority to wait for those new targets to be put in place? It could then use brownfield sites in Birmingham and we could keep our greenfield sites in Bromsgrove.

I am coming to some of those points, but I must say to the hon. Lady that it is not consistent with our approach for any one authority to shed its responsibility to contribute to the 60 per cent. brownfield target simply by saying that a local authority elsewhere should take up its share of responsibility. That is not what the process is about.

The hon. Lady said that Bromsgrove residents were concerned at the number of new houses that might be required in the district over the coming years. I understand that the new draft structure plan for Worcestershire adopts the housing allocation for the county that was set out in the regional planning guidance issued in 1998. I take issue with the way in which the hon. Lady portrayed the process of reaching the figures and allocating them to districts. The housing allocations were based on advice to the Secretary of State from the West Midlands local government association and were arrived at in partnership with other public and private sector interests, including Bromsgrove and other local housing authorities. To say that the Government hand down numbers is to misunderstand or mislead about the nature of the process, which is dynamic. Crucially, it involves a determination by local partners of the overall target and how it should be allocated.

As the strategic planning authority, Worcestershire county council has divided the overall provision between districts. The hon. Lady complained about that division, but the new structure plan is to go to public examination in July, when local authorities and others will have an opportunity to debate these important issues. My Department is in the process of preparing its formal response on the structure plan, so I cannot comment further, except to say that the figures are not set in concrete; Bromsgrove and other districts will be able to make their views known.

I appreciate the fact that Bromsgrove has less previously used land than other authorities. However, by applying a rigorous analysis of where that land is—taking the sequential approach in PPG3—Bromsgrove can at least go some way towards meeting its targets. The figures released today for the results of the individual local planning authority's contribution to the national land use database show that Bromsgrove has at least 46 hectares of previously developed land, not the zero hectares that the hon. Lady and the council leader have talked about.

There is an opportunity through proper process for Bromsgrove to make its views known on the matter.

Order. Time is up.

I am grateful for the opportunity to air the important issue of the impact of high pupil mobility on schools. I am delighted that we have such a sound and comprehensive report as that prepared by Janet Dobson on which to base the debate and shape recommendations. I congratulate her and the Department for Education and Employment on commissioning the study.

A principal conclusion of the report is that many factors influence pupil mobility, including general social mobility of students, people moving around for work, and so forth. Given the area that I represent, my purpose is to concentrate on the issue as it affects London. I want to emphasise the joined-up nature of the problem of high pupil mobility, especially in inner-city communities. High turnover compounds and is compounded by problems caused by homelessness, which include poverty, and the dislocation and trauma experienced by many asylum seekers who do not have English as a first language. To set the context, 40,000 householders are in temporary accommodation in London, 5,000 in bed and breakfast. The total, including asylum seekers, is 55,000.

The timing of the debate is apposite, because I am aware that during the recently started second stage of research, and no doubt after the final report lands on the Minister's desk, minds were and will be concentrated on vital issues such as strategies to reduce mobility. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the issue of pupil mobility as raised in the report will be considered in the housing Green Paper, as the two issues are closely allied. Also important are the additional costs placed on schools with high mobility levels, especially where the turnover involves pupils who score highly on other indices of deprivation, and the equally serious problem of high teacher mobility, which tends to occur in exactly those schools that experience high pupil turnover. I hope that the research and the debate that it inspires will lead to a greater understanding of the costs involved and the predicament of schools and their staff. They are struggling to raise educational standards under the pressures that high mobility brings.

Some of the figures, and the human stories that they represent, are dramatic. Last week, the head teacher of a school in my constituency told me about a five-year-old boy who was inducted into school on a Monday and disappeared from it the next day, having been rehoused as a result of a shift in temporary accommodation in Portsmouth. The little boy arrived in the country in November speaking no English, and his day at Wilberforce school was a taste of the third school that he had attended since his arrival.

While I prepared for the debate, other local head teachers gave me similar examples. One school saw the equivalent of one new arrival a day between the start of term and the day three weeks later when the inspectors arrived from the Office for Standards in Education. In a year 6 class in Kensington, only one child sitting standard assessment tests at key stage 2 had been present since key stage 1. One in three children in Hackney have not been at their primary schools for the full four years of the key stage 2 curriculum.

As the Dobson research suggests, mobile pupils are disproportionately likely to have lower levels of achievement at entry. For example, children in Westminster who joined primary school after key stage 1 are three times more likely than their settled peer group to have limited English. Levels of attainment at key stage 2 among pupils joining late are 19 percentage points lower for English, and 12 percentage points lower for maths, than levels achieved by pupils attending school from the start.

A lot of that can be explained by the high incidence of mobile pupils with English as an additional language. However, an extra problem arises from pupils not having resources in the home to enable them to study or to draw on the ideal level of parental support needed to help them to achieve.

There are no excuses for low achievement. All the heads to whom I spoke reiterated that each pupil should realise his or her maximum potential. However, I was struck by the close correlation between school achievement as measured by test results and levels of pupil mobility. In one of the boroughs that I represent, the combined percentage of unexpected leavers and unexpected admissions ranged from 43 per cent. to 2 per cent. I pay tribute to the excellent work done in our high-achieving schools, but it is clear from statistics that many of them do not face the pressures of schools in which almost half the pupils change schools in a year.

I hope with all my heart that that fact will be more fully appreciated by Ofsted, by the media and throughout the country because, only by recognising it, can we appreciate the level of achievement of staff and pupils in schools with a high turnover, whose efforts are little short of heroic.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the problems that she is describing are also evident in seaside towns? A school in Lowestoft in my constituency counted the number of pupils in one group as it moved through the four years of the school and found that only one third of them had been with the school throughout. It had a mobility rate of about two thirds. A break in education is the biggest detriment to progress. Schools need resources to support transient pupils to ensure that non-transient pupils do not suffer. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: Ofsted must take into account that factor when placing a school in a group, by which it sets the standard assessment test results.

I agree that there is a serious problem in seaside towns. My hon. Friend's point strengthens my argument.

High pupil mobility also places cost pressures on schools. Teachers must assess and offer support to a new child sometimes every two or three days, set up records and prepare teaching materials. That takes considerable time and energy. Induction can easily add one or two hours per pupil, which, when multiplied by 60, 70, 80 or 90 pupils in one school, quickly eats up staff time. Records need to be prepared for early leavers to be passed on to their next school, which, again, when multiplied by the number of pupils involved adds to the pressure.

In the secondary sector, the number of pupils spirals. One comprehensive in my constituency dealt with 284 unexpected arrivals and leavers in one year. Mary Marsh, the head of Holland Park comprehensive school, estimates that the total processing time in her school costs the equivalent of a teacher's salary. It is not only teacher and administrative time that is involved; schools provide folders, paper, textbooks and other materials, which, in high pupil mobility schools, are unfortunately lost to a far higher degree than in schools in which the pupil population is stable.

There are even more stresses. Many London schools with high pupil mobility take in the children of asylum seekers. We are talking not about high proportions of children with English as an additional language, but about 15, 25 or 35 different languages being spoken in a school. In Holland Park school and North Westminster school, the number of different languages total 70, so the pressure is multiplied. In year 11 at Holland Park school, 47 per cent. of pupils are late entries, 45 per cent. have English as an additional language and 40 per cent. of pupils are on free school meals.

The need for additional resources for schools with large numbers of pupils with an additional language is already recognised in the system, but the additional complexity of working with pupils who come from many different countries, who speak different languages and are from different cultural traditions is not yet fully understood. In many schools, children arrive with little or no English. A child may be the only one in the school who comes from a particular country and speaks its language. That makes the teacher's job harder and adds to the sense of isolation and dislocation of the child.

Taking all the causes of high mobility together and the additional stress factors that are often linked to it—homelessness, the pressures of life in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, family breakdown, domestic violence, war trauma, the psychological damage done to parents who may have undergone torture—it is scarcely surprising if such schools find it harder than usual to build a strong identity. Greater than average behaviour problems in schools may result from such a high level of instability and turbulence.

Children who remain in a school throughout their school life are also affected, which is an important lesson that we need to learn from the research. We do not sufficiently appreciate the damaging effect that the regular fracturing of relationships that children have built up with others who move on may have. Families in temporary accommodation are often given no notice that they have to leave and are told to move overnight; the children are therefore moved from schools without having a chance to say goodbye. That can be damaging for all the children involved.

As I said, I am aware that a high level of pupil mobility is by no means only a London issue. That is supported by the Dobson research. I have not touched on the problems experienced by traveller children, excluded children, children in care and the experience of seaside towns or army bases. However, as the initial report states, London is unique in terms of the combination and concentration of factors generating high pupil mobility. It is also unusual in having a high turnover in both the primary and secondary sectors. The research shows that, in many other areas, high pupil mobility is concentrated in primary schools.

I realise that the research is at too early a stage to expect firm commitments from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. However, I hope that she will give general support to the recommendations in the first stage report and to the need for greater awareness of the multiple pressures with which schools have to deal. We need more data on which to make decisions and a standard methodology: one of the report's findings is that information is collected differently in different boroughs and schools. We need more support for tracking children who often move regularly between schools. I am sympathetic to the inclusion of some form of exceptional circumstance factor in the ethnic minority and traveller achievement grant, to help meet the needs of highly mobile groups, whatever the underlying cause of their mobility, and to help promote best practice in schools. I hope that we can look forward to greater recognition of the problem, and to greater compensation for schools experiencing high mobility, from a Government who are rightly demonstrating their commitment to high standards of achievement for all.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing this debate on an extremely important question. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said, this is a problem that particularly affects seaside towns. I wish to say a little about that from my perspective of the Member of Parliament for Blackpool.

The situation in seaside towns is different from that in London in the sense that our populations tend to be more ethnically homogenous. We therefore do not have the problem to which my hon. Friend referred, but we have large numbers of people moving in and out, seeking seasonal employment, and that obviously makes a substantial contribution to pupil mobility. Those are often people with few skills, usually young people with families—with all the attendant problems—with low income, poor health, and drug and alcohol problems. They often live in poor conditions in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The non-routine admission pupils from that transient population often have special educational needs and behavioural difficulties, and are underachieving. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary appreciates those significant factors.

The educational development plan that Blackpool borough council prepared two years ago concluded that the borough's high level of pupil turnover—something in the order of 1,200 primary school pupils were non-routine admissions in 1997–98—has a destructive effect on schools, strains teachers and resources and affects teachers' ability to make a sustained impact on achievement levels. A headmaster in my constituency with a primary school with an annual pupil turnover of 48 per cent. said:

"Large numbers of pupils moving in and out of the school makes target setting and tracking pupils' progress extremely difficult."

That also has implications for the extent to which high mobility will, if not properly monitored, frustrate the Government's attempts to measure added values in school league tables.

The final point again picks up on what my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said. I am encouraged by the Government's response so far, not only in terms of commissioning the original Dobson report which is seminal in this respect but because it indicates what they propose for the future. As a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment which inquired into the work of Ofsted—as part of the inquiry, we raised with the chief inspector the issue of monitoring high pupil mobility—I am delighted that the chief inspector acknowledged on separate occasions that it was an important factor which he and the Government would take formally into account in future Ofsted inspections and in the inspection process. It is a key issue north and south which affects not only inner-city areas but seaside towns. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has raised it.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing today's debate. I also congratulate her and my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) for their well-informed, measured and intelligent contributions. Like them, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important complex issue. As they so ably outlined, there is evidence that pupil mobility is a serious problem for schools, local education authorities and, most of all, pupils. I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. I too, believe that in many schools with high pupil mobility, teachers and non-teaching staff do a fantastic job supporting pupils. They deserve recognition for the good work that they do.

As my hon Friend said, in January 1999 my Department provided additional funds to a Nuffield Foundation research project being undertaken by Dr. Janet Dobson and colleagues at the migration research unit of University College, London. Department for Employment and Education funding enabled a report to be produced in October 1999; the final report is not expected until June 2000. The key objectives of this research were to review current knowledge of child migration, establish what was known about the scale, nature and implications of high pupil mobility for the functioning of schools, and develop a better understanding of regional variations.

My three hon. Friends displayed a good understanding of some of the factors highlighted by the report, but it is worth reminding ourselves of what research discovered about the range of factors associated with high mobility. The report identified high-mobility groups, such as travellers, refugees, asylum seekers and the children of armed forces families. It identified circumstances of high mobility such as social deprivation, family break-up, temporary housing and seasonal work. As we heard, it also identified high-mobility areas, which tended to be concentrated around London and other cities and conurbations, and in coastal resorts and areas with a large number of armed services families. The situation is clearly complex, with no cause, and, therefore, no easy solutions. We have recognised that in the debate. Overall, the study found that family break-up was the most significant factor contributing to high pupil mobility. This has implications for our response.

For the research, 66 local education authorities provided data on a high-mobility primary school. In 80 per cent of those schools, the mobility rate was 20 per cent. or more. Ten LEAs provided examples of primary schools with a rate of 70 per cent. or more. I accept what my hon. Friend said about difficulties and numbers in secondary and primary schools. However, average mobility is higher in primary schools than secondary schools, although some London LEAs have high rates in both. That highlights a problem in primary schools, which are often relatively small with little administrative support.

My hon. Friend rightly identified London as having a unique combination of factors generating pupil mobility in schools. There is a particular problem in relation to children from overseas. About 70 per cent. of children who came to schools as new pupils between the ages of five and 15 in the year preceding the 1991 census were from overseas.

Other specific factors associated with London to which my hon. Friend alluded are homelessness, temporary housing and exclusions—inner and outer London have the highest exclusion rate. Children from armed forces and traveller families also have a presence in Greater London.

Important implications for individual schools should inform our policy response. The study found that children joining schools at non-standard times are, on average, achieving less in key-stage tests and GCSEs than those who complete a whole key stage or career in the same school.

Changing schools does not per se lead to lower than average achievement for children or schools. We must take account of other factors leading to high mobility that also affect outcomes and tend to be linked to exclusions, social deprivation and lack of fluency in English. Lower achievement by mobile pupils, compared with that of non-mobile pupils, seems to be associated with social deprivation and/or a lack of fluency in English, which is exacerbated by high mobility.

I accept my hon. Friend's contention that high mobility has an impact on school target-setting, measuring performance, using value added to reflect progress and planning teaching. Furthermore, it makes heavy demands on staff time and resources which, as has been rightly pointed out, has implications for the whole school, not just mobile pupils. I am sympathetic to the fact that high turnover affects a school budget over the course of a whole year.

The Government are addressing the problem by undertaking a range of policies. Our early-years policies will ensure that children who benefit from nursery education, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are more likely to succeed in primary school. The sure start programme, which has an emphasis on support for families, may help to address mobility at source, especially in relation to family breakdown.

Baseline assessment will be of value if records are passed on quickly between schools. We have introduced a common transfer form and new regulations on the transfer of records. Increasing investment in information and communication technology and in administrative support for schools will make that transfer smoother.

My hon. Friend rightly emphasised the importance of home-school links in high-quality education and pupil achievement. The development of such links may be extremely time consuming in a high-mobility school, even when all parents are fluent in English. The report emphasises that a positive home-school relationship is likely to be a mjor factor in helping some children to settle in and start to learn. Therefore, the Department is supporting schools by providing guidance and examples of good practice to build that important home-school relationship.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South mentioned the importance of measuring performance to raise standards and the difficulty of calculating measures of value added for schools with high pupil turnover, but nevertheless, the Government are committed to ensuring that that is done. As he said, Ofsted's work in taking account of pupil mobility will help with future developments of value-added measures, as will the Government's introduction of unique pupil numbers and the ability to track individual pupils to support their learning and provide more valid measures of achievement.

Schools with high pupil mobility often have to set targets without knowing which children will still be in school at the end of the year. Schools can set additional targets to reflect their priorities. However, many schools find setting targets a challenge. That is why the consultation on target setting, which is due to be sent to schools and LEAs later this term, will invite suggestions from schools with high mobility on how regulations might take account of such matters.

The role of Ofsted has been mentioned. It is important that, under the new Ofsted framework, inspectors will collect data on pupil mobility and comment, if appropriate, on the likely impact on performance. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North made a point about benchmarking. Detailed information about pupil mobility will be not only collected but made available to inspectors and included in the PANDA—the performance and assessment data—and the PICSI—the pre-inspection context and school indicator reports issued to schools by Ofsted.

It is worth mentioning that the excellence in cities programme, which focuses on raising achievement, will make a positive contribution to fostering stability in some of those areas of London, to which my hon. Friend referred, where it is a particular challenge. Some pupils experience the effects not only of mobility but of not having English as their first language or of coming from overseas, so it is important not only that our ethnic minority achievement grant, which replaced the education element of the Home Office section 11 grant in 1998, has been increased by 7 per cent. compared with last year, but that it will go directly to schools so that head teachers can use it where it is needed most—for example, to target pupils who need teaching or assisted support in English as an additional language, or to work with local communities. Although I recognise that that will not completely solve the financial problems, it is important as an extra support for those children, as my hon. Friend rightly said, who have language as an additional difficulty as well as mobility problems.

Pupil numbers will always fluctuate for a variety of reasons, reflecting the mobility of pupils and families. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that the Government are sympathetic to the challenges faced by schools and pupils. We will continue to study the results of the research to find a way in which to support those schools both financially and in our work to raise standards. The research has enabled us to clarify what we mean by mobility and to identify patterns of mobility, and it will inform our policies at school, LEA and national levels. The Department will continue to note the emerging findings.

My hon. Friend is right to say that pupil mobility is an issue for schools, but it is also an issue where joined-up action across Government is extremely important. The implications are not of concern to the educaton sector alone, but I assure my hon. Friend that they are of great concern to the Department. We must highlight the impact of health improvement strategies and urban regeneration, housing and social inclusion policies. That will require collaboration across services. I assure my hon. Friend that we take the issue very seriously.